Which of the following was a political legacy of British colonial rule?
479980
Listen, get your English teacher to help you with this.  When you say "which of the following," you are supposed to provide a list!
2571
The Commonwealth refers to countries that were once under British rule, but are independent today. One interesting fact is that the sport of Cricket is very popular in most Commonwealth countries. More information in the source below.
837847
I am a Nigerian.  Well I quite agree with all others have said so far, but I will like to look at the cause of political instability from the political angle.\n\nPolitical instability has become a common thing in Africa.  And I think one of the top-ranked reasons for instability in our political circle is the incursion of Military in Politics.   Though with the new songs about democracy in all parts of Africa, the heavy hand of the military is still very much felt.  Political Instability is associated with the military regime.  But the question is why are we still experiencing same even in democratic settings.\n\nI however submit by saying unless the faces of the former military leaders, officers are erased from our political setting no much can be achieved in stabilising our political life.
360846
Gold Coast was a colonial name.  When the British colony became independent, on 6 March 1957, it became the country of Ghana.
502129
Although there is debate about what constitutes neo-colonialism, the Belgian Congo (now the Democratic Republic of Congo) and Ghana are cited as examples of continued victimization.\n\nSome also argue that debt repayment from African countries to the International Monetary Fund also constitute a form of neo-colonialism.\n\nKwame Nkrumah, erstwhile President of Ghana and one of the chief proponents of pan-African unity, long insisted that Ghana was another victim of neo-colonialism.\n\nMore details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism.
405741
Well, I take you back 70 year for now. Zimbabwe was until its independence from colonial rule from Britain (?) was called Rhodesia after Cecil Rhodes who ruled Rhodesia. As another fact, Cecil Rhodes is the man who the Rhodes Scholarship is named after. Zimbabwe, Rhodesia at the time, was ruled in the same manner as its neighbor to the south South Africa, repressively brutal to the Africans through its own apartheid. \nAnother fact Zimbabwe is known for its Great Wall and has a very ancient society. Look in your local library for the rest of Zimbabwe's history. I am embarassed that I couldn't tell you the rest. Do a look-up of Cecil Rhodes.
1180858
Hoist by their own petard.  It all stems, not only from the colonization itself, but the laws put in place afterward (British Commonwealth, former French colonies, etc. all have laws making their ex-colonials, eligible for immigration)
676548
Liberia, officially the Republic of Liberia, is a country on the west coast of Africa, bordered by Sierra Leone, Guinea, and Côte d'Ivoire. Liberia, which means "Land of the Free", was founded as an independent nation by freed slaves from the United States. Recently it has witnessed two civil wars, the Liberian Civil War (1989–1996), and the Second Liberian Civil War (1999–2003), that have displaced hundreds of thousands and destroyed its economy.On July 26, 1847, the American settlers declared the independence of the Republic of Liberia.
412669
Although there were many aspects of the British political system that the USA did not want to copy such as the monarchy and a hereditary second chamber there were influences of British rule that were to remain such as jury trial, an independent judiciary, the voting system and freedom of the press and association. Two influences that have remained in the American system but were dying out in Britain even at the time of the Declaration of Independence were grand juries and impeachment.\n\nImpeachment, in which Crown officials (which included ministers and judges) could be tried before a committee of the House of Lords (chaired by the head of the judiciary, the Lord Chancellor) after the House of Commons had prepared and voted on an indictment and was mainly used for cases of corruption and bribery whilst in office, was fading out as ministers became more responsible to Parliament, rather than the Crown, for their actions and ministers accepted responsibility for their officials' actions.\n\nThe last major impeachment proceedings were against Warren Hastings, the Governor-General of India, who was accused of privately profiting from his official post. The trial lasted 7 years from 1788 to 1795 and among the prosecutors were Edmund Burke and the playwright, Richard Sheridan, but it was really a thinly-veiled attack on the government of Pitt the Younger who had a solid majority in the House of Lords which would never have voted to convict Hastings and the presiding officer was also a member of Pitt's Cabinet and the proceedings swiftly developed into farce along the lines of the O.J.Simpson trial.\n\nThe attempt to revive this antiquated procedure by a few Scottish & Welsh Nationalists with the support of a few Labour left-wingers arises from the fact that they lack the political support to oppose Mr Blair's foreign policy. It is also extremely undemocratic as it involves using a judicial procedure to override the doctrine of ministerial accountability to the elected chamber of the House of Commons. Before the decision to invade Iraq in March 2003 a debate was held in the House of Commons to discuss the matter and the government's policy was approved by a majority of 200 (as the opposition Conservative Party joined in supporting the government). According to subsequent reports Mr Blair made it clear that had he lost that vote, or even if less than half the number of Labour MPs had supported him (in the event slightly more than half supported him) he would have resigned. Since that vote a General Election has been held in May 2005 in which the electorate were given a chance to express their feelings about the Iraq issue (as well as other matters)and could have forced Mr Blair to stand down if they had wanted to and felt strongly enough about it. In the event, although there was some rise in support for the Liberal Democrats (although Iraq was not the only reason for this) Mr Blair was returned to power with a majority of 65 seats. 66% of the electorate voted for the two major parties which had supported the invasion of Iraq and anti-war Labour MPs suffered as big a swing against them (in some cases much larger) as pro-war Labour MPs.\n\nI agree with the Democrats who, during the impeachment of Present Clinton, argued that to remove a head of government by this method while he still retains the confidence of the electorate would be tantamount to a "legalised coup d'etat". The best and most democratic way to express dissatisfaction with a sitting Prime Minister under our system is to pass a vote of censure or no confidence in the House of Commons and the Prime Minister would then be faced with two choices, he would either have to resign, as Neville Chamberlain did after the Norway fiasco in 1940 or call a general election as James Callaghan did in 1979 (which he subsequently lost).
879569
A long, long history of Western imperialism.
235187
It would be the prime minister.  If I remember correctly Jamaica is a former British colony and still has the Queen of England as it's head of "state", while the PM is the head of "government."
666123
slavery and colonization
388968
Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (Devanagari: मोहनदास करमचन्द गांधी; Gujarati: મોહનદાસ કરમચંદ ગાંધી; October 2, 1869 – January 30, 1948) was a major political and spiritual leader of India, and the Indian independence movement. He was the pioneer and perfector of Satyagraha - the resistance of tyranny through mass Civil Disobedience strongly founded upon ahimsa (total non-violence) — which led India to independence, and has inspired movements for civil rights and freedom across the world. Gandhi is commonly known and addressed in India and across the world as Mahatma Gandhi (from Sanskrit, Mahatma: Great Soul) and as Bapu (in many Indian languages, Father).
682098
Beginning probably around the 1600s, various European nations began colonizing parts of Africa. The Europeans would go into a country and claim the land as their own, often enslave the people (sometimes sending them off to other colonies in the new world) and exploit the natural resources. After hundreds of years of colonial rule, African nations began rebelling, beginning around the middle of the 20th century. One by one, African nations gained independence. However, the power vacuum left by the European's departure was often filled by corrupt, despotic dictators. \n\nIn my opinion, the biggest disruptive thing the Europeans left behind was a legacy of exploitation of the people by the leadership of the country. This legacy is manifested by extreme poverty (despite ample natural resources available) and corrupt leadership. \n\nbasically, the Europeans used the africans then left them hurt and brioken with little ongoing support or help in liberating themselves from tyrannical rule.
892332
Both.  Ghandi picked the perfect time to start his independence movement.  Empires around the world were crumbling after WW2 and the British empire was no exception.
235536
England. I'm basing this off Joseph Lee's book where he says "Developments towards a welfare state after the war owe more to English example than to indigenous impulse". So, in effect, he says we copied the system from Britain.
1132491
Education system under the British rule India was poor, because Britisher educate people for only satisfy their requirement.