In a government without agreed-upon or peaceful means for removing officials, political instability and civil unrest are likely to ensue. Citizens may resort to protests, uprisings, or even violent conflict to express their dissatisfaction, leading to a breakdown of social order. Such a situation can result in an authoritarian takeover or the emergence of competing factions, further complicating governance and undermining public trust in institutions. Ultimately, the lack of peaceful mechanisms can hinder effective leadership and exacerbate societal divisions.
i don't know is the answer cuz it does not even make sense so i am so confused about this question.
The Glorious Revolution of 1688 was a peaceful transfer of power that changed England's government. There was no blood spilled during the Glorious revolution and when William and Mary took the throne, they agreed to a constitutional monarchy and a bill of rights.
The representatives said that the elected officials ruled in the people's name. (the Federalists also agreed with that)
The representatives said that the elected officials ruled in the people's name. (the Federalists also agreed with that)
private peaceful is not a movie yet but Micheal morpurgo has agreed that private peaceful might turn into a movie in 2012
all governments have agreed that the economy of the nations are not very good. I feel the same way they do. I know that government officials are doing the most to cover this situacion.
The representatives said that the elected officials ruled in the people's name. (the Federalists also agreed with that)
The government agreed the practice of Islam.
Damasen agreed to avenge Tylus' death meaning he fought but with a serpent.
The form of government the framers of the Constitution agreed to create republic
The Pilgrims agreed to set up their own government.
the nation needed a new government