Thank you for posting your question here at brainly. I hope the answer will help you. Feel free to ask more questions.
below are the choices:
a.Liberty
<span>b.Popular Sovereignty </span>
<span>c.Pluralism </span>
<span>d.Equality
</span>Popular Sovereignty
<span>You don't know the power commanded by the oligarchs with their bribes, lobbying, and subsidies. Your vote doesn't even count anymore. What we have lost is the ability of the commoner to get a say for what others are going to do. Special interests, complicated partisan maneuvering, political standstill on every level makes the rise of the Sith a very real possibility in our government.</span>
Answer:
If the Colonists succeeded it would damage the British economy, where Britain happens to be a rival to Spain.
If you view states as unitary actors, you assume competing national interest groups have to work to create a unitary national interest.
Answer: Option A
<u>Explanation:
</u>
The unitary entertainer presumption treats states as a solitary element that attempts to boost national interest, extensively characterized. Hence, can find the political separation between the leaders and the citizens.
(Along these lines, "national interest" could mean the states are exceptionally big-hearten). While such cleavages surely exist, they will exist at the same time with the issues and so many problems
.
<span>If a man is stateless, according to Aristotle, then he is not living in an organized society. The state is known as a natural institution which houses man which is a naturally political animal. Since humans are born to be citizens, then a man must have a state. If a man is stateless, then the state is not a proper society.
</span>
