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
horsena [70]
3 years ago
13

did nations with strong central governments achieve more stability than those with less autocratic governments? Why or why not?

 I will give brainliest 
History
2 answers:
ivolga24 [154]3 years ago
4 0

First of all, it is important to highlight that a strong central government does not equal an autocratic one. However, if you are comparing governments with a single leader that has a lot of power and governments with a more balanced distribution of power, then autocratic governments tend to be less  stable than governments who distribute power among several leaders.

The main reason for this is that a single, strong leader can be more conducive to abuse and corruption. If every decision depends on the judgement of a single person, that person might feel tempted to use power for his own benefit. This reduces accountability to the people, and leads to personal interests being more important than the interests of the nation.

On the other hand, when power is well-distributed, institutions have a system of checks and balances. This means that it is much harder to abuse power. It is also more difficult to put your interests ahead of the nation's interests. Finally, this strategy leads to slower change because it requires dialogue and cooperation, and slow changes usually contribute to stability.

Otrada [13]3 years ago
3 0
A strong central government is unitary states, which means that this kind of government has a distinct power at the various levels authorized or delegated to its member states. This kind of governance could have more achievement than autocratic governance its because autocracy has only one person has the right of everything in the states. Which means that he or she can control everything and it could lead to disaster and rebellion 
You might be interested in
Which statement best describes the state of the war Europe in 1943?
solong [7]

Answer:

C. The tide of the war had shifted in favor of the Allies.

Explanation:

we do be wining

4 0
3 years ago
What former slave brought attention of slavery through writings and speeches?
Sauron [17]
I'm pretty sure that would be, Frederick Douglass.
7 0
3 years ago
Read 2 more answers
Why did truman dislike stalin
harina [27]
Truman disliked stalin because of political differences the usa were capitalist and the ussr were communist another reason was tat he didnt  like the fact that stalin was a dictator who would murder millions of people 
8 0
3 years ago
PLS HELP!! And an explanation would be great :)
eduard

Answer: ( A ) It became a world power.

Explanation:

The global equilibrium, which had allowed the United States to grow and prosper in virtual isolation since 1815 was gone forever as the result of a short but shattering war. In 1898, U.S. domestic support for the independence of Cuba enmeshed the United States in a struggle with Spain over the fate of the island nation. The decision to aid the Cuban resistance was a major departure from the traditional American practice of liberal nationalism, and the results of that decision had far-reaching consequences. The 1898 Treaty of Paris ending the war gave Cuba its independence and also ceded important Spanish possessions to the United States—notably Puerto Rico, the Philippines, and the small island of Guam. The United States was suddenly a colonial power with overseas dependencies.

This assumption of colonial responsibilities reflected not only the temporary enthusiasms of 1898 but also marked a profound change in the diplomatic posture of the United States. The foreign policies of the early 19th century had less relevance at the dawn of the 20th century because the nation had changed. The United States had almost all the attributes of a great power—it stood ahead or nearly ahead of almost all other countries in terms of population, geographic size and location on two oceans, economic resources, and military potential.

7 0
3 years ago
What were two ways that the idea of total war was used in world war 1
Mkey [24]

The two ideas of total war was used because the countries against each other where angry with each other and It was one of the deadliest conflicts in history and precipitated major political change, including the Revolutions of 1917–1923 in many of the nations involved. Unresolved rivalries at the end of the conflict contributed to the start of the Second World War twenty-one years later. They wanted to end conflict. The second reason was that each country wanted more power. It was a "war to end all wars" But it never ended all wars since World War II Came around the corner twenty-one years later.

~~

~Hope this helps

5 0
3 years ago
Other questions:
  • Pls help :(<br> What does Thoreau say people should do with unjust laws?
    11·1 answer
  • 90% of the people of south america practice Christianity
    6·1 answer
  • Which diagram most accurately shows how late 20th-century migration
    14·1 answer
  • Source: http://www.archives.gov/research/military/vietnam-war/casualty-statistics.html#country
    7·2 answers
  • What happened in Poland in 1989?
    11·1 answer
  • What were two early attempts at unity by the american colonies?
    7·1 answer
  • Why did English immigration to the colonies slow after 1660
    9·1 answer
  • Which is the best definition of figurative language?
    9·2 answers
  • Write essay on How does the absence of humanitarian concern influence the treatment of slaves during the slave trade? Support yo
    8·2 answers
  • A. It was established by President Barack Obama. B. It makes it easier for all Americans to access health care. C. It was part o
    8·1 answer
Add answer
Login
Not registered? Fast signup
Signup
Login Signup
Ask question!