Oh honey, that's an easy one. We're talking about good ol' Dictatorship, where one person or a small group of elites call all the shots while the rest of the population just has to sit back and deal with it. It's like a bad game of Simon Says, except there's no winning and definitely no democracy.
dictators governed latin american nations after independence
a constitutuion Apex = ]]
Theocracies Oligarchies Dictatorships Absolute monarchies Communism International corporations The EU commission The United Nations
Yes, it is the responsibility of government to establish the minimum standards to which its young citizens should be educated and to audit the fact that these standards are being met/delivered by a nations educational establishments. However the curriculum details should not be a matter for politics but for an academic consensus.
A democratic government in which all citizens participate directly in government is known as a direct democracy. In this system, individuals have the opportunity to engage in decision-making processes, typically through voting on laws and policies rather than electing representatives to make those decisions on their behalf. This form of governance emphasizes active citizen involvement and can be seen in practices like referendums and town hall meetings. However, it is more feasible in smaller communities rather than large nations.
a Dictatorship
a Dictatorship
England developed a popular government by majority.
dictators governed latin american nations after independence
True
a constitutuion Apex = ]]
a constitutuion Apex = ]]
Mandates
In some countries, church aka religion is part of government policies and in some countries a particular religion is called the "official religion" of these nations. In Western nations, religion normally plays no role in government practices and policies. In the United States Constitution, the first amendment states that the government cannot establish an "official" religion, nor interfere with the practice of different religions among its citizens. There is a good reason for the amendment to forbid government interference in religion, it prevents government from denying citizens part of their freedoms.
The Parliamentary form of government has the majority party in Parliament and the Prime Minister both of the same party. In fact, the majority party in Parliament gets to pick the PM. This allows for legislation to pass with a rapidity that is astonishing to Americans. In the United State's Presidential form, the majority party of Congress has nothing to do with who gets to be President. This allows for legislation from Congress to be vetoed by the President. The chief complaint of the Presidential system (by those in other nations) is that it makes government too slow. The chief thing the citizens of the United States like about it is that it makes government too slow. Hence the astonishing frequency of citizens of the United States, with no coordination or planning, always changing the party in control of Congress, so that it will be the opposite to the President. This does not always happen, but it happens far more than chance would dictate. Say what you like about the U.S. citizens, they take "balance of power" quite seriously.
saar
There is a group of people who consider themselves to be sovereign citizens of the United States (rather than ordinary, garden variety citizens) and who claim to have special rights, however, the US government does not agree with them. Realistically, there is no such status as sovereign citizen; only nations are sovereign, citizens are not.