Which best explains why, in 1990, the military junta agreed to elections and then refused to give up power?
a. a pro-democracy party won.
b. burma was too unstable for the transition.
c. an ethnic minority party won.
d. there was election fraud.

The correct answer is A) a pro-democracy party won.

The option that best explains why in 1990 the military Junta agreed to elections and then refused to give up power is because a pro-democracy party won.

Todays Myanmar was formerly known as Burma. In 1990, the military Junta accepted elections but the result didn’t like them. The military government couldn’t accept the citizen’s decision that elected a democratic party and refused to give up power. The National League for Democracy Party had won the election. The will of the people from Burma was clear. They did not want the military forces in power, they wanted democracy and a new form of government. But the military decided otherwise.

after a more than a decade and a half of combating al qaeda (aq) in afghanistan and pakistan,

the united states faces a diverse array of threats from al qaeda affiliates in the middle east and

africa. while senior al qaeda figures reportedly remain based in pakistan, the network includes

a number of affiliates across the middle east and africa including al qaeda in the arabian

peninsula (aqap), al qaeda in the islamic maghreb (aqim), and al shabaab. al qaeda also

retains a small but possibly growing presence in afghanistan. u.s. officials have stated that al

qaeda still maintains a foothold in syria through its ties to hay’at tahrir al sham (formerly

known as the nusra front), though the exact nature of that relationship may be evolving. this

report examines the threat posed by al qaeda affiliates in the middle east and africa as described

by u.s. officials and outside observers, as well as the u.s. approach to date in responding to these

threats. this was all i could find hope this : )