C. Their elected leaders refused to privatize businesses and institute free-market economies
Explanation:
Many of the former Soviet states found it very difficult to govern themselves. The main reason for this was economic, as the leaders of some of the states didn't allowed privatization of the businesses and to change their economies to market-economies. Good examples of this are the five Central Asian countries, Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan, as well as Azerbaijan and Belarus. All these countries had leaders that acted in a manner similar to that of the Soviet politicians, some reminding a lot of Stalin, or some rightfully bearing the nickname ''Tito'' (after the Yugoslavian leader). They acted like dictators, and in general still do, setting back their countries in their development.
The correct answer is C) Their elected leaders refused to privatize businesses and institute free-market economies.
The factor that made it difficult for many former Soviet states to govern themselves following the collapse of the Soviet Union was that their elected leaders refused to privatize businesses and institute free-market economies.
After so many years of being part of the Communist regime of the Soviet Union, it was not easy for the recently independent states, -former USSR states- to adopt new modalities of a free market and foreign trade with other nations, including West European and North American countries. In reality, these newly independent states had many struggles to transition from what is known as a command economy to a free-market economy. They were still used to have a strong central government that could control and makes all of the decisions.
A headline demonstrates a check on presidential foreign policy power is discussed below in details.
Explanation:
Though compelled by numerous other laws legislated by Congress, the president's administrative branch administers most foreign policy, and their capability to organize and direct companies as commander-in-chief is pretty important (the exact boundaries of a president's military capabilities without Congressional permission are open to debate).
