Question

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

Answer 1

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.

Answer 2

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