This is called a
"Tragedy".<span>It is a show or other artistic work that relates the fall or hardship
of a person who, while experiencing sufferings, cop with that responsibly and
deals with the circumstances and problems that he or she faces, and who in this
way exhibits the value of human exertion and human presence.</span>
It's definitely not in a theocracy: those usually favour the majorities.
Also migrant labors don't specifically favour minorities.
Now, between democracies and command economies the choice is very hard, as it depends more on the specific country. So for example in many places the role of the minorities rose in command economies, since they went against the patriarchy (in China this was the case for example, the role of women in China improved drastically, while women and minorities are still struggling in Japan, which is a democracy). On the other hand, Nazi Germany was also a command economy, and yet it was very bad for minorities
I would say that the question is too complex to give just one answer, but I would also argue for option d)
Federalists, led by Hamilton and Adams, wanted a powerful national government to push for aggressive economic development.
Republicans, led by Jefferson and Madison, wanted a small national government to leave the citizens mostly free of taxation or government interference.
I would have favored Federalists who wanted a powerful national government to push for aggressive economic development because if we look at China,they have a strong national government and have pushed for strong economic development.China has progressed very fast in the last 30 years or so. 100 million people have jumped from lower class to middle class and have started paying higher taxes.China has grown faster than any other country in the world and they have lot of surplus funds as they export their stuff to almost all the countries in the world.
<span>Loyalty because even though they were through many wars the Greeks still stayed loyal to their country.</span>
