Theocracy: Government centered around Islamic beliefs.
religious leaders are also leaders of government.
follow sharia law.
based on the Qur’an.
desire to return to traditional way of life.
example— Iran.
Monarchy: government ruled by one
led by a king, sultan, o emir.
may hold all power or have power limited by constitution.
Positions are hereditary.
follow tribal laws.
examples— Bahrain, Saudi Arabia.

Democracy:
government with a parliament elected by others:
leaders are chosen by parliament.
follow civil laws.
have constructions.
examples: turkey, Israel, Iraq.
Rights in israel:
citizens participate in government.
many political parties exist.
all men and women have voting rights.
freedom of speech and religion, Gender equality.
Rights in Saudi Arabia:
citizens have little participation in government.
no political parties exist.
voting rights are restricted to local level.
royal family controls government.
freedoms of speech, press, and religion are limited.
women’s rights are estimated.

Rights in Iran:
citizens have some participation government.
no political parties.
all men and women have voting rights.
all political candidates are approved by religious leaders.
freedoms of speech, press, and religion ar limited,
women’s rights are restricted.
Add New Note
Advanced

I'm not sure if this a question or not but all the information on this is right except the last one. there are political parties in iran.

Explanation:

soothing tone) but quickly, the tone changes from a light tone to a grim one. by introducing disturbing word choices that are illogical.make a list of some of levertov’s images of war from both of her poems. how do her wordsaffect you? do you agree with her position on war? write a short response (at least 100 words) and support your answer with personal experience or your studiespoets can change the tone in a poem, and levertov does when the she refers to "delicate man . .whose eyes/are flowers that perceive the stars”. the word choices here are different. theimages began to show feelings of hope/potential. but this mood is interrupted with the dark oppressive words "entrails of still-alive babies" and "carcass-gulleys". levertov continues to switch tones by "the deep intelligence living at peace would have"—one is left with a sense of hope. i can connect with her words that humans can do better things than fight in war. we only have one life so dying in a war would be for no reason. also, i am a christian and in the bible, it says "thou shall not kill", and i strongly believe in that.people respond differently to satire—some like it, others don't get it. in at least 150 words, describe what you think of goines's narrative essay. discuss whether you think his position is convincing.the satire kept people's attention, rather than just rambling. instead of being dead serious, he adds humor to enlighten it. i think he did a good job of proving his point, but convincing people to stray from their own beliefs is hard, and satire can be offensive to that person. overall i think that goines's narrative essay was good because narrative essay create deeper understanding. i also like that the narrative essay is in first-person. the essay was filled with diction and word choice to let you know that the essay is going to be witty yet satirical. his point was to write  

explanation:

john social contacted the noble of religous