Answer:
Democracy itself is defined through the concept of institution. A democracy, Przeworski told us, is possible when the relevant political forces can find institutions that give a reasonable guarantee that their interests will not be affected in an extremely adverse way in democratic competition, that is, when interests are subjected to institutionalized uncertainty. (1986). Trust in institutions is closely linked to political culture. Almond and Verba in The Civic Culture: political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations (1963) in a study carried out in 1959, they detect that in what they call a modern society there is much more participation, the key for them would be in the political culture. This refers to the attitude of individuals towards the political system and the role they play as individuals within it. Both attitudes, according to Almond and Verba, can be appreciated through certain patterns of orientation towards the political objects of a nation. These patterns can be of four forms: political orientation, which refers to the internalization of the objects of the political system and the relationships between these objects: the cognitive orientation of the system, which refers to the knowledge of what there is, for example the results of public policy; affective orientation, which focuses on feelings towards the political system, its roles, and functioning; and finally, evaluative orientation, which unites the elements of the previous orientations and allows generating evaluative criteria. Trust in institutions permeates these three levels of political orientation. Finally, Frederick C. Turner and John D. Martz (1997) have analyzed the case of Latin America, where the trust of citizens in institutions is an essential factor for the consolidation of democracy. Ludolfo Paramio (1999) argues that party identification and trust in institutions are conditions for the proper functioning of democracy. In short, institutions are the basis, feed and give value to democracy through various mechanisms at different times. March and Olsen (2006) point out that there are various theoretical approaches to institutions that are distinguished mainly by: first, how they conceive the nature of institutions; second, how they explain the processes that translate into structures and rules and their political impacts, and, lastly, the processes that turn human behavior into rules and structures to maintain, transform or eliminate institutions
According to Piaget, children gain logic in middle school
Just don’t take the drug in all honesty
<u>The correct answer is A. He divided the empire into provinces and appointed a leader for each province</u>. From 539 BC to 331 BC, the <u>Persian Empire</u> was the most powerful state in the world and <u>Darius I</u>, who was King from 522 BC to 486 BC, divided that <u>Empire</u> into twenty large provinces, called <em><u>satrapies</u></em>. Each<em><u> satrapy</u></em> was governed by a<em><u> satrap or governor</u></em>. Their main responsibilities were to enforce law and order, and to collect taxes and tributes. To check the satraps, a secretary and a military official representing <u>Darius</u> were installed in every province. This division secured that he would not have to travel from one end of his empire to the other, defending the borders against every little tribe that decided to attack.
