I would go with D. Things like gender/income/race do not affect how informed they are on issues or whether they are willing to speak oit at length, or if they are likely to vote in the next election. So D seems correct
Answer:
1. It Is a clear expression of fake democracy. The term "free election" doesn't entirely make sense in a country where any distinction between the ruling party and the government has been almost completely erased. Syria is considered a unitary republic with a semi-presidential style of government. However, the controlling parties practice a highly authoritarian regime with most of the political power in the AL-Assad family's hands. People doesn't have more option if the want to "live".
2. If I live in that country, I think I feel like a hostage. Elections over there aren't free, and they're certainly not fair. The resulting optics are not democratic enough. They buy the government a minimum of democratic credibility abroad without seriously imperiling its hold on power.
Explanation:
Made elected officials more directly accountable to their constituents
I think that if you are spending so much on little necessities, then your wasting money because the only things you need to buy are the things you actually need. Not electronics, not toys, just the simple things you need. Not phones, not PS4s, nothing like that. You pretty much are wasting your life on doing those type things. Your losing more energy everyday doing stuff like that. It is really not helping much when you do things like that because like I said, your wasting your energy, your money, and trees and minerals and things to keep the ACTUAL things we need in life today, like food and shade for when it's hot out from the trees. But you also need to keep in mind, the more money we make and things, more trees go away. Animals might even be dying from this. That is how I think the changes in spending will effect the economy.
