What are two advantages of an autocracy?

1 answer:

6 0

An autocracy can be advantageous in some instances. In a deeply divided nation, stability is needed. A strong leader is needed to guarantee stability. In the event that an autocrat, is a very wise leader,development is also guaranteed as the country remains peaceful.

You might be interested in

There was one problem that Congress couldn't agree on in Jefferson Declaration of Independence. What was it?

IRINA_888 [86]

Independence was not made the main focus

6 0

3 years ago

What did the pro democracy leader sun yat sen do in 1911

lukranit [14]

What are the answer choices

7 0

3 years ago

Did The Capetians improved French government.

maw [93]

Yes the Capetians improved french government

5 0

3 years ago

2. (Citizenship 02.03 MC)

Alisiya [41]

2) <span>The Anti-federalists demanded more written protection than the Federalists did for individual rights.
In order to get 9/13 states to ratify the Constitution, the Federalists had to appease the Anti-Federalists, who were concerned that a strong national government would take away the people's rights.
Note: Anti-Federalists supported the Articles of Confederation more, as the power rested in the state governments.
3) </span><span>Therefore, each branch of the central government will have the power to check the power of the other branches.
This is the only correct answer as the concern at that time was that the national government would have too much power.
4) </span><span>refer to people electing leaders to make government decisions
This is the only answer that makes sense.
A representative democracy is one in which the people elect representatives to make decisions for them.</span>

4 0

3 years ago

Compare and contrast the ways that seventeenth-century

Lina20 [59]

Answer:

<h2>Important differences - Unlike the other two, Charles I was not associated with any political Party, and had not "risen through the ranks" to become Leader. As a King, he achieved his position by heredity, and since no-one can choose their parents, this was used to justify the doctrine of "Divine Right" - God dedcides that a child shall be born into a Royal succession, and it is blasphemy to make any attempt to change this. Similarly, it was therefore the "will of God" that he should be succeeded by one of his children - the eldest son, in the English and Scottish tradition. In England, there was also the unusual situation that, as well as being Head of State, the King was also Head of a particular religious organization - the "Church of England" - which meant that he could not be expected to recognise any other form of Christianity. It was his enforcement of this which aroused resistance by such men as Cromwell, who was against any enofrced religon, and for "liberty of conscience". (This was why Cromwell subsequently also opposed Parliament when it attempted to enforce Presbyterianism,) There is perhaps case for seeing a similarity in Stalin, since "Marxist/Leninist Communism" was in fact a "religion", even though a godless one. There are virtually no comparisons with Hitler.</h2>

3 0

3 years ago