1answer.
Ask question
Login Signup
Ask question
All categories
  • English
  • Mathematics
  • Social Studies
  • Business
  • History
  • Health
  • Geography
  • Biology
  • Physics
  • Chemistry
  • Computers and Technology
  • Arts
  • World Languages
  • Spanish
  • French
  • German
  • Advanced Placement (AP)
  • SAT
  • Medicine
  • Law
  • Engineering
Helga [31]
3 years ago
12

Which statement best completes the diagram showing the development of modern democracy?

History
2 answers:
galina1969 [7]3 years ago
8 0

The correct answer is: "charters and constitutions place limits on leader's powers"

Charters and Constitutions emerge as supreme laws, because from their provisions the whole legal system of a country is derived, including the bills of rights, appointed as the next step in the democratic process. Constitutions establish the main principles of a certain democratic system such as universal suffrage or social contract. Provisions such as the division of powers limit the amount of power that might be exercised in a state by each of the three branches : legislative, executive and judiciary.

Some of their provisions that pertain to Constitutions had already started to be written down in separated codes in the former step of the democratic process <em>"the first codes of law are written down".</em>

  • Option A cannot be true as, by definition, a democractic country follows the rule of law.
  • Option C is not true either, because in fact most democratic countries have a representative democracy (citizens elect their representatives as rulers who will make the political decisions for them) instead of a direct one (citizens directly make the political decisions without intermediaries).
  • Option D is also wrong. In fact, some of the main democratic principles such as division of powers, universal suffrage and social contract have their origin on the Enlighment ideas which enhanced reason and the scientific method over religious beliefs and superstitions.
Sever21 [200]3 years ago
6 0

Charters and constitutions place limits on leaders powers


You might be interested in
Why didn't France and the UK declare war on the Soviet Union when they invaded Poland?
kompoz [17]
"The reason why Britain didn’t declare war on the Soviet Union is an intriguing one. Unknown to the general public there was a ‘secret protocol’ to the 1939 Anglo-Polish treaty that specifically limited the British obligation to protect Poland to ‘aggression’ from Germany" http://www.historyextra.com/qa/why-did-britain-and-france-not-declare-war-soviet-union-when-red-army...

8 0
3 years ago
Most Honorable Delegates, I recommend that you tell the state leaders that these three weaknesses in the Articles of Confederati
Kazeer [188]
The first one is a problem because if they have no power to tax then people can do whatever they want and that will cause chaos it will also leave the government bankrupt. The second is a problem because if there is no law enforcement then crime rates will rise. The third one is a problem because bad leadership could end up making the confederate loose the war against the union and cause the confederacy to crumble.
4 0
3 years ago
How did the assassination of the Archduke of Austria-Hungary lead to war
solong [7]

Answer:

Explanation:

The murder of Archduke Franz Ferdinand outraged Austria-Hungary. ... Austria-Hungary was furious and, with Germany's support, declared war on Serbia on July 28. Within days, Germany declared war on Russia—Serbia's ally—and invaded France via Belgium, which then caused Britain to declare war on Germany.

6 0
3 years ago
China Losing Freedom:Is taking down statues and changing names of places and streets bad? Why or why not?​
expeople1 [14]
Yes because it can hurt people if they don’t do it
5 0
2 years ago
4. Assume that the South won and slavery was preserved. What would have happened to slavery when mechanization (the switch from
Elan Coil [88]
The south winning would be a <em>huge</em> issue in itself, and if they continued to use slaves when the Industrial Revolution came around, there wouldn't be a need for slaves, and the vast expansion of the slave trade would shrink by a lot- as the US wouldn't need them.
Here's the problem:
If we're going into counterfactual history, we have to keep a lot of things in mind.
Was the Industrial Revolution sparked because there were no more slaves? If they still had slaves, would it not have been necessary to obtain and invent machines?
Would we be the United States? Would be have gone at war again from the North still being against slavery? Keep these things in mind.
Hopefully this helped!
5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • How were the causes of the Enlightenment similar to the causes<br> of the Industrial Revolution?
    5·1 answer
  • Who directed the first scientific archaeological excavation in history?
    7·1 answer
  • In hopes pf. finding a route to asia
    11·1 answer
  • “54°40’ or Fight,” refers to what?
    8·1 answer
  • What is the wind rush scandal ?
    11·1 answer
  • 4. Who controlled the Byzantine church?
    7·2 answers
  • Which most accurately describes the arab empire's impact on religion in the middle east?
    7·1 answer
  • Which of these was true of the German economy immediately after world war 1? select all that apply.
    10·2 answers
  • What was the major goal of Reconstruction.
    9·1 answer
  • Which of the following places still belongs to the Catholic Church?
    7·2 answers
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!