The African National Congress (ANC) is the Republic of South Africa's governing political party. It has been the ruling party of post-apartheid South Africa on the national level, beginning with the election of Nelson Mandela in the 1994 election. Today, the ANC remains the dominant political party in South Africa, winning every election since 1994. Cyril Ramaphosa, the incumbent President of South Africa, has served as leader of the ANC since 18 December 2017.[3]
Founded on 8 January 1912 by John Langalibalele Dube in Bloemfontein as the South African Native National Congress (SANNC), its primary mission was to give voting rights to black and mixed-race Africans and, from the 1940s, to end apartheid.[4] The ANC originally attempted to use nonviolent protests to end apartheid, however, the Sharpeville massacre resulted in the deaths of 69 black Africans and contributed to deteriorating relations with the South African government. On 8 April 1960, the administration of Charles Robberts Swart, banned the ANC and forced the party to leave South Africa.[5] After the ban, the ANC formed the Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) to fight against apartheid utilizing guerrilla warfare and sabotage. On 3 February 1990, State President F. W. de Klerk lifted the ban on the ANC and released Nelson Mandela on 11 February 1990.[6] On 17 March 1992, the apartheid referendum was passed by the voters removing apartheid and allowing the ANC to run in the 1994 election. Since the 1994 election the ANC has performed better than 60% in all general elections, including the most recent 2014 election.
Senators are more vulnerable to defeat than their colleagues in the House <span> because Senate candidates are more evenly matched in spending
Money often became a very decisive factor for political candidates for winning the votes through campaigns and advertisement.
Similar spending means that they wouldn't have enough found to out-perform their competitor, which make the senators more prone to losing.</span>
Explanation:
In simpler words, the multi-part question is asking for you to first analyze the three sources, then pick a side and have knowledge to defend your point on the question 'to what extent should nations pursue their national interests'.
In source 1, it shows that the majority of Canadians are opposed to sending troops to Afghanistan, with 36% voting for, 5% unsure, and 59% voting against.
Source two is clearly depicting the nazi's, at a rally held in Nuremberg. Although the source does not state if the protesters are pro or against Nazi regime, I am assuming they are pro. This would lead to the assumption that the people of Nuremberg are pro-Nazi empire.
The source 3 is a timeline, that goes from 1920 to 2005. This time period is very significant, because it captures many important battles, such as world war 2, Persian Gulf War, and the Iraq invasion.
After reading these three sources, you must decide if you think it is good for nations to pursue their national interests, or bad.
Hope this long explanation helped clarify the troubling question for you!
The Jungle brought light to the harsh reality of the working and food conditions. The book helped the passage of many Federal food safety laws.
if the nation in question is America then the reason why our society has much more to offer than other society is because American society has the largest diversity than any other nation.
hope this helps!
