By having total power or taking power by force
One action that they could do is to change the constitution: pass an amendment! A disadvantage of this approach is that it will have to be ratified by the states, but the advantage is that they will never face this speficic it's an problem again.
Another action is changing the bill, taking out the problematic part. The advantage is that it's quicker than the first option, but the disadvantage is that they will have to give up on parts of the bill, which might have been very important.
- Stop the exercise immediately if you experience a painful pressure on your chest, jaw, or neck
- Stop the exercise immediately if somehow you became overly fatigued during the exercise
- Stop the exercise immediately if your vision somehow became blurred during the exercise
Saudi Arabia's government is an <u>autocratic monarchy</u>.
<u>Explanation</u>:
Autocracy is a form of government in which the nation is controlled and ruled by only one person. History says that Adolf Hitler is an autocrat.
Monarchy is a form of government in which one person takes the power of ruling by heredity and rules the nation. Queen Elizabeth II is a monarch.
Some of the countries that follow autocratic monarchy are Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, Brunei and Eswatini.
If an individual proves himself as a dictator and overthrows the existing government, he/she can get a chance to be the autocratic leader.
About the first option: public theater satires of the fascist thinking.
No, I am pretty sure that fascism does not encourage this and quite on the contrary, it would punish this with death: in a fascist societies all people are expected to believe in the agenda
The second option: private ..., as long as the government is served.
I think that the missing word here is "businesses" - and yes, fascism would encourage this, since it would make the economy stronger
