Did nations with strong central governments achieve more stability than those with less autocratic governments? why or why not? i will give brainliest

First of all, it is important to highlight that a strong central government does not equal an autocratic one. However, if you are comparing governments with a single leader that has a lot of power and governments with a more balanced distribution of power, then autocratic governments tend to be less  stable than governments who distribute power among several leaders.

The main reason for this is that a single, strong leader can be more conducive to abuse and corruption. If every decision depends on the judgement of a single person, that person might feel tempted to use power for his own benefit. This reduces accountability to the people, and leads to personal interests being more important than the interests of the nation.

On the other hand, when power is well-distributed, institutions have a system of checks and balances. This means that it is much harder to abuse power. It is also more difficult to put your interests ahead of the nation's interests. Finally, this strategy leads to slower change because it requires dialogue and cooperation, and slow changes usually contribute to stability.

it would have concentrated power in the executive branch of the government. it would have restored balance among the three branches of government. it would have set a precedent for government intervention in the economy. it would have signaled an end to all the programs of roosevelt’s new deal.

did this .

`stare decisis is a legal doctrine that obligates courts to follow historical cases when making a ruling on a similar current or future case. stare decisis ensures that cases with identical facts be approached in the same way, unless overruled by the same court or a higher court such as the us supreme court. simply put, it binds courts to follow legal precedents set by previous decisions.

stare decisis is a latin term meaning "to stand by that which is decided".