Yes,
oligarchy fits as a description of South African government under the system of apartheid. In the
political philosophy of Aristotle, "
aristocracy" is "rule by the excellent ones," and in certain eras of history or in some societies, one group or another has been portrayed as more "excellent" and thus more favorable for serving as governors. In Aristotle's political thought, an
"oligarchy" or "rule by a few" is a corruption of the idea of aristocracy. But Aristotle was biased, believing that by nature some persons are more excellent than others, that some are more suited by nature to be followers, not leaders. (Aristotle used such logic in defending the institution of slavery, for instance.) Today,
we might argue that any sort of "aristocracy" or elitism is always an oligarchy, an arbitrary system in which a few dominate over the many because of factors that can't rationally be defended.For another answer on a similar question, read more on Brainly.com -
brainly.com/question/9475348#readmore
So basically not communicate with another individual !
Jawaharlal Nehru:
Worked closely with Gandhi in the Indian Independence struggle, First prime minister of independent India, Became leader of the Indian National Congress
Muhammad Ali Jinnah:
Became leader of the Muslim League in India, Wanted to create a separate Islamic nation.
I looked all the answers up to make sure I was right.
B, because the others have story elements that frequently appear in historical fiction. Not to mention how the only choice that used the word “historical” is B
It depends. The true definition, with is roughly law without force, then it wouldn't be too bad. Sounds like it would just be a non corrupt world. However, modern day groups like ANTIFA, it would suck. Things have been blown out of proportion honestly to the point where anarchy, or "anti-fascism", almost looks like fascism.
