My Ssec Capstone Project TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC o “1-3” h z u CHAPTER ONE PAGEREF _Toc512568819 h 1INTRODUCTION PAGEREF _Toc512568820 h 11

TABLE OF CONTENTS TOC o “1-3” h z u CHAPTER ONE PAGEREF _Toc512568819 h 1INTRODUCTION PAGEREF _Toc512568820 h 11

TABLE OF CONTENTS
TOC o “1-3” h z u CHAPTER ONE PAGEREF _Toc512568819 h 1INTRODUCTION PAGEREF _Toc512568820 h 11.1. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY PAGEREF _Toc512568821 h 11.2 STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM PAGEREF _Toc512568822 h 21.3 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY PAGEREF _Toc512568823 h 31.3.1 MAIN OBJECTIVE PAGEREF _Toc512568824 h 31.3.2 SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES PAGEREF _Toc512568825 h 31.4 RESEARCH QUESTIONS PAGEREF _Toc512568826 h 31.5 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY PAGEREF _Toc512568827 h 31.7 LIMITATIONS OF STUDY PAGEREF _Toc512568828 h 41.8 SCOPE OF THE STUDY PAGEREF _Toc512568829 h 4CHAPTER TWO PAGEREF _Toc512568830 h 5LITERATURE REVIEW PAGEREF _Toc512568831 h 52.1 INTRODUCTION PAGEREF _Toc512568832 h 52.2 DEFINITIONS AND CONCEPTS OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE PAGEREF _Toc512568833 h 52.3 REASONS FOR POLITICAL VIOLENCE PAGEREF _Toc512568834 h 62.4 IMPACT OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE ON GOVERNMENT LEGITIMACY PAGEREF _Toc512568835 h 62.5 IMPACT OF POLITICAL VIOLENCE ON DEVELOPMENT PAGEREF _Toc512568836 h 72.6 STRATEGIES TO ADDRESS POLITICAL VIOLENCE PAGEREF _Toc512568841 h 14CHAPTER THREE PAGEREF _Toc512568842 h 18METHODOLOGY PAGEREF _Toc512568843 h 183.0 INTRODUCTION PAGEREF _Toc512568844 h 183.1 STUDY POPULATION PAGEREF _Toc512568845 h 183.2 SAMPLING PROCEDURE PAGEREF _Toc512568846 h 183.3 SAMPLE SIZE DETERMINATION PAGEREF _Toc512568847 h 183.4 SOURCES OF DATA PAGEREF _Toc512568848 h 183.5 INSTRUMENTS FOR DATA COLLECTION PAGEREF _Toc512568849 h 183.6 RESEARCH DESIGN PAGEREF _Toc512568850 h 193.7 METHODS OF DATA PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS PAGEREF _Toc512568851 h 194.0 REFERENCES PAGEREF _Toc512568852 h 19
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 IntroductionThe study seeks to investigate the impact of political violence on government legitimacy, recognition and economic development of Zambia. The first section presents the background to the study, thereafter; the subsequent section brings to the fore, statement of the problem, objectives of the study, research questions, significance of the study and limitations. The last section gives a summary of a chapter.

Background to the StudySince transitioning to multiparty democracy in 1991, Zambia has enjoyed a fair degree of political stability. Elections, considered the cornerstone of any flourishing democracy, have been particularly trouble-free in a region where ballots are often cast amid the threat of bullets. This could now be at risk as the country because of the escalation levels of political violence that have engulfed politics in Zambia since 2011 general elections.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!


order now

Historically, Zambia has not been plagued by the violence that has hit other countries in the region, but since 2011 general election there has been an upsurge in violent incidents by some of the cadres of different political parties. Unlike many of its neighbours, Zambian political history has been relatively stable since it gained independence in 1964. Despite a number of failed attempts by the military to overthrow the government, conflicts have generally been resolved through non-violent means, mostly through the courts, whose decisions are generally accepted. However, Zambian politics is based on systems of patronage. Leaders reward their supporters with jobs and contracts to secure their loyalty and power base, thus public funds are used for private purposes. Moreover, political insecurity ensues whenever there is a change of government since it is generally based on the establishment of new patronage networks and the necessary disruption of existing ones. Fearing prosecution, those on their way out are reluctant to leave.

Zambia has been rocked in recent times by unacceptable levels of political violence perpetrated against those expressing views contrary to those held by the Patriotic Front Party government. Those perceived to be opponents of the Government are attacked, assaulted, their meetings disrupted while a highly compromised police force unashamedly looks on. Perpetrators of the violence openly carry weapons (most commonly pangas) and state publicly in the presence of the police their intent to harm their opponents. The Government reaction, when not blaming the victims for the violence that befalls them, has been to disclaim any responsibility for the actions being perpetrated by vigilantes and party cadres. Surprisingly, some civil society groups, prominent citizens, organizations and church leaders are afraid to assign blame for the violence to the rightful owners and instead call for restraint on both sides. It is yet to be explained how a victim can exercise restraint against armed and brutal assailants, unless what is meant is that the victims should forego their rights to freedom of expression and assembly. That, unfortunately, would be to let tyranny triumph and we know well Burke’s quote that “the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.”
Zambians must remember that tyranny, once allowed to take root, deprives the people of the capacity to resist bad governance because of the pervasive atmosphere of terror, fear and insecurity created in them by repeated arrests, police harassment and unwarranted prosecutions. It intimidates them, and induces in them a mood of cautiousness so as not to risk their lives or liberty, resulting in an attitude of resignation, submissiveness and timidity.
It can therefore be indicated that, a key area of political conflict involves the elections. Although Zambia’s elections have generally been conducted in a relatively peaceful manner, with only minor outbreaks of violence between small groups of opposing party supporters, there are issues related to the process of electing representatives that could pose a risk to government legitimacy and recognition and development of the country.
This current study seeks to investigate the impact of political violence on government legitimacy, recognition and economic development of Zambia following the 2011 – 2016 elections.

1.2 Statement of the ProblemA key area of political violence in Zambia involves the elections. From 2011 to 2016 elections, this country has recorded unprecedented levels of political violence which culminated in the killing of innocent citizens defranchising voters, intimidating of opposition parties and limiting their ability to campaign and most importantly, the main opposition political party refused to recognize the election of the incumbent leader. As Times of Zambia dated on August 10, 2014 puts it, political violence has become a big problem in recent years, putting a dent on Zambia’s positive reputation as a peaceful nation, more so that it is now a regular occurrence during by-elections.. However, there is no agreement on what is causing political violence in Zambia; all that we have seen is a blame game from both the ruling party and the main opposition party. The witnessed an unprecedented amount of violence since 2011, has brought of concern from all the sections of society that Zambia’s lauded political stability may be seriously threatened. Thus, this study seeks to investigate impact of political violence on government legitimacy, recognition and development of Zambia using a case of 2011 – 2016 elections.

1.3 Objectives of the Study1.3.1 Main ObjectiveThe main objective of this study is to investigate impact of political violence on government legitimacy, recognition and economic development of Zambia a case of Zambian elections 2011-2016.

Specific ObjectivesTo investigate the causes of political violence in Chawama constituency of Lusaka District.
To ascertain the impact of political violence on legitimacy of government.

To examine the impact of political violence on recognition of government.

To investigate the impact of violence on economic development.
1.4 Research Questions The study will be guided by the following research questions:
What are the causes of political violence in Chawama constituency of Lusaka District?
What is the impact of political violence on legitimacy of government?
What is the impact of political violence on recognition of government?
What is the impact of political violence on economic development?
1.5 Significance of the StudyThis paper seeks to investigate the impact of political violence on government legitimacy, recognition and economic development a case of Zambian election 2011-2016. Thus, its significance lies in the fact that it aims at giving a coherent analysis of the causes and impact of political violence on government legitimacy, recognition and economic development in Zambia generally. This study is also timely due to the fact that the country is presently confronted with unprecedented levels of political violence.
It is ultimately expected that the study results shall help all the relevant stakeholders especially political parties in coming up with resolutions on how political violence can be stopped through the implementation of recommendations of the study.

1.7 Scope of the StudyThe study will be conducted in Chawama constituency of Lusaka District. Chawama Constituency borders Lusaka central business district (CBD).
1.8 Limitations of StudyThe study focuses on investigating the impact of political violence on government legitimacy, recognition and economic development in Zambia. The study is limited to Chawama constituency of Lusaka district only.
This study will be limited by inadequate time and funds in facilitating the research process. The researcher will overcome this by ensuring that time and resources present are utilized efficiently and effectively. Another inevitable limitation will be concealing of personal information by respondents. The respondents will be assured that the information will be used only for the purpose of the research and the utmost confidentiality with all the information given.

1.9 Theoretical Framework
The study shall principally use two theories; frustration – aggression theory and conflict/Marxists theoretical perspectives.

The basis of the frustration – aggression theory is found in the works of Dollard (1939) Gurr (1970) Midlarsky (1975) Anifowose (1981) and Maire (2004). They employed this approach as a general basis for the explanation of political violence in societies. This theory presents the idea of relative deprivation as a perceived disparity between value expectation and value capabilities or the lack of a need satisfaction that defines the gap between aspiration and achievement. Midlarsky (1975:40) simply put it this way: when there is a gap between the level of value expectation and the level of value attainment due to lack of capability to establish’ a congruence between both levels, tension builds up due to the unfulfilled aspiration or an unsatisfied urge or need. This when not arrested in time, leads to frustration. Frustration, when it builds up leads to the rising up of suppressed emotions of anger which is often directed against the party considered to be the source of deprivation or dissatisfaction. This strong emotion finally finds an outlet through aggressive and invariably violent disposition towards the environment.

Conflict/Marxist theoretical perspective shares the same assumptions concerning the nature of the society and political violence. Marxist situates every social action within the ambit of economic base and lays much emphasis on historical and dialectical materialism as a methodological device. Conflict theory on the other hand emphasizes conflict as the hallmark of the society (Yecho, 2005). The theory is based upon the view that the fundamental causes of political violence are the social and economic forces that operates within society.
Conflict theorists are of the view that there are groups in the society that have different interests. In this regard they believe that social arrangement will tend to benefit some groups at the expense of others.

Because of existence of the different interests, the potentials and the likelihood of conflict is always present. According to this theory, some groups come to dominate others and to win for themselves a disproportionate share of the society’s political power, which includes wealth and privileges in the society at the expense of the less powerful ones. They also incriminate the activities of the less powerful while they protect that of the powerful persons such situations according to this theory creates violence. The theory is of the view that, the masses are not bound to society by their shared values, but by coercion at the hands of those in power. This perspective emphasizes social control, not consensus and conformity. Groups and individuals advance their own interests, struggling over control of societal resources. Those with the most resources exercise power over others with inequality and power struggles resulting. There is great attention paid to class, race, and gender in this perspective because they are seen as the grounds of the most pertinent and enduring struggles in society which often lead to political violence (Anderson and Taylor, 2009).
According to the theory, the nature of politicking in Zambia abridges the basic right of citizens as the various institutions of society such as the legal and political system are instruments of ruling class domination and serve to further its interests. However the activities of citizens aimed at maintaining the resistance leads to increased escalation of political violence in Zambia. For instance, the elections held in 2011 and 2016 were preceded by widespread intra-party and inter-party violence that continued on the polling days (Human Rights Watch 2004). This further indicated that elections in 2011 and 2016 were marred by serious incidents of violence, which left scores dead and many others injured.
The reality of politics in modern Zambian society is that even the police take side with the most powerful group instead of being neutral in carrying out their role of crime prevention and control. Consequent upon this, they aid and abet well placed individual in the society who commit political violence and go unpunished while punishing others who commit the same crime but are less powerful members of the society, thereby increasing the problem of political violence in the society. From the above background it has clearly been demonstrated that even the police do not give adequate attention to prevention and control of political violence as the core of their duty, rather they are organized to manage and conspiring with the most powerful group in the society who perpetrate political violence thereby leading to social disintegration of Zambians. Based on the foregoing major assumptions of the theories, the perspectives have been adopted as the theoretical guide on the study of the effects of political violence on government legitimacy, recognition and development, a case of Zambian elections 2011-2016.CHAPTER TWOLiterature Review2.1 IntroductionThis chapter reviews relevant literature in support of the objectives of the study including definitions and concepts of political violence, causes of political violence, and impact of political violence on legitimacy and recognition of government, impact of political violence on development of Zambia and recommendations that can be adopted to address the problems of political violence in Zambia.

2.2 What is Political Violence?
Nieburg (1969:18) advanced that political violence is a product of factors and actors and peoples’ reactions that combine to produce violence in a society. He went further to add that political violence can also be seen as a process that takes place between various groups or categories of actors within a political system.

Eric (2004:24) stated that political violence means the exercise of physical force with the intention to harm the welfare or physical integrity of the victim. According to him, the exercise of such force that is politically motivated and that can be exercised by governmental or anti-governmental groups can be described as political violence. Mifflin (2009:25) on his part, stated that political violence is the calculated use of unlawful violence to inculcate fear, intended to coerce or intimidate governments or societies in the pursuit of goals that are generally political, religious, or ideological. Dzurgba (2010:26) also advanced that political violence arises from party formation, party membership, campaign hosting, voting behaviour, pressure groups, use of thugs and assassins, recruitment and training of militias, control and use of economic resources such as petroleum oil and solid minerals, sharing of revenue, leadership, control and distribution of power, unjust electoral process, perverted judicial institution and police, indiscipline political behaviour, corruption and foreign influence. Civil war and international war are the greatest aspects of political violence.
Political violence is a perennial feature of plural societies; in fact it has become a problem of great national and international concern because of its socio-economic and political implications. It is therefore any form of disaffection with or opposition to the procedural consensus established by a society which is calling for the total destruction of its political system. It is a purposive form of behaviour intended to disorient the behaviour of others thereby bringing about the demise of a hated social system.

2.3 Causes of Political Violence
Several studies have been conducted throughout the globe in order to find out some of the major determinants of participation in political violence. The rationale for this is to ascertain whether education, poverty, deprivation and frustration have any causal link to political violence.

Available statistics show that many of the unemployed youths turned into trained militant sects to intimidate, harass and assassinate political opponents. Nwokoma (2005:30) further added that the primary determinant of political violence in the Nigerian state from 1999 through 2007 was as a result of the poor and low economic growth in the country. In similar manner Piazza (2006:31) also carried out a study to determine whether poverty and low education are determinants of political violence activities in societies using the Rooted – in – Poverty hypothesis. According to Piazza (2006:164) the rooted-in-poverty hypothesis stems from the belief that impoverished countries teeming with poorly educated, unemployed masses qualified by a widening gap between the rich and poor combined with low literacy rates are fermentation tanks for dangerous and violent militants. The low levels of economic and social development increase the appeal of political extremism and encourage political violence and instability.

It is worthy to mention here that empirical evidence refutes this hypothesis. Yet, it continues to be popular and the belief that political violence is a result of poverty, poor education and acute unemployment. To buttress the fact that poverty cannot breed political violence from the data collected by the United States of America Department of State’s office of the Coordinator for Counter Terrorism, Piazza (2006:33) illustrates the disparity between speculation and realty. In his study over a 15 year period, out of Ten Nations most affected or afflicted by terrorist incidences, only three fit the profile of low levels of socio-economic development.
However, from other studies conducted, evidence illustrates a starkly different reality. Research indicates that in less — developed nations economic progress is actually negatively related to transnational terrorism. It is not the poor countries but the rich ones that are more prone to transnational terrorism or political violence.
Diego and Steffen (2009:34) also gave their support to the fact that poverty has no relationship with political violence when they advanced that a disproportionate number of violent extremists were highly educated engineers. Piazza’s studies revealed that none of the economic indicators are significant predicators of either terrorist incidents or cruelties. His study further revealed that there is no empirical evidence to support the crux of the rooted in poverty thesis. The fallout from such a revelation can be expected to be quite significant. If poverty is the critical failure point, then it also provides an easy answer to the problem of political violence, instability and terrorism in societies. Thomas (2009:35) in his study at the causes, responses, and the framework for discussing and preventing political violence in Kenya implicated poverty, unequal distribution of resources and land issues as the main causes of political violence in Kenya. His study revealed that there seems to be a sense among some observers that agents of political violence in Kenya are fundamentally dissatisfied with the social and economic conditions of life. Participation in political violence can therefore said to be furthered by a widespread sense of dissatisfaction in the distribution of wealth a situation that has given rise to high level of poverty in the country.

While Wolfenson (2010:36) has gone on record several times touting poverty as the main variable cause for political violence and terrorism. Underwood (2010:37) also disagrees and points out that most terrorist and those that engage in political violence activities are not impoverished, but rather are well educated and middle class. The case of Algeria’s relative wealth and high violence is just one example that contradicts this hypothesis. Therefore, there must be some other motive for political violence outside poverty, being poor is not a sufficient motivator for violent conflict in a society. However, a major misconception still persists in the study of political violence as scholars still argues that poverty is a major determinant of political violence. Many continue to believe that poverty breeds terrorism or political violence and instability. Regardless of evidence that stand out to the contrary, the belief is not just held by the casual observer inundated with sensationalized media, but that it has also taken hold of national leaders and those leading international development agencies. As such, it is imperative to address the notion that poor people are more likely to violently revolt, engage in political violence or engage in terrorist activities.
CHAPTER THREEResearch Methodology
3.0 Introduction This chapter deals with the description of the methods that will be used in doing this research. It describes the design of the study, population, sources of data, sampling procedures, instrument for data collection and methods of data analysis.

3.1 Research DesignThe research design adopted for this study will be a combination of descriptive and explanatory research. An explanatory approach will be necessary to determine the causes of political violence whereas the descriptive approach will be used in an effort to investigate the impact of political violence on government legitimacy, recognition and development of Zambia.

3.2 PopulationPopulation refers to the total of items about which information is desired and is defined in keeping with the objectives of the study (Salum, 2008).The targeted population for this study is eligible and registered voters, political cadres from the ruling party and opposition parties, political leaders, ECZ officials, Zambia police service, faith based organisations civil society and Human Rights Commission.

3.3 SamplingRandom sampling of eligible and registered voters and political cadres will be used in respective of wards in Chawama Constituency of Lusaka district while, political party leaders, ECZ officials, and other stakeholders like the church leaders will be purposively sampled. Chawama constituency currently has a total of 69,228 registered voters. however, not every voter will be sampled instead
3.4 Data sources Both the primary and secondary sources of data are to be used for the study. In the case of the primary source of data questionnaires are to be used to collect data on impact of political violence on government legitimacy, recognition and development of Zambia. The questionnaires are made up of both open ended and close ended questions. In the case of the secondary sources of data, reports, books and journals on impact of violence are to be studied.

3.5 Data collection instrumentsThe main instrument that will be used in the collection of data is a questionnaire. The questionnaires will comprise both open ended and closed ended questions.
The blend of the two types of questions is to solicit responses on the causes of political violence. Further, the questions will help to investigate the impact of political violence on government legitimacy, recognition and development of Zambia as well as to gather recommended actions to address the problem of political violence in Zambia.

A total of 100 questionnaires will be self-administrated to eligible and registered voters, political cadres, and political party officials as well as other stakeholders such as ECZ, police and Civil society. The study adopts the self-administration method to reduce on possible errors that may result from anticipated factors such as illiteracy levels among the respondents. The other reason is the need for a high response rate. 3.6 Data analysis
The data will be collected in the study through the administration of questionnaires, interviews and focus group discussion which will be summarized and analyzed both qualitatively and quantitatively.

3.6.1 Qualitative Data Analysis
Data from the questionnaire shall be structured and coded into main and sub headings or themes from the analysis. The analysis may include the isolation of direct quotes from the respondents in order to provide some real life understanding of voter perceptions.

3.6.2 Quantitative Data Analysis
Quantitative data collected shall be analyzed using Version 21.0 of the Statistical Package in Social Sciences (SPSS) software. This will be used to compute frequencies, measures of central tendency and the generation of other statistics. All tables and graphs generated shall be analyzed in order to find descriptive relationships between variables.
REFERENCESDouglas, A. (2003). The Human Right to Peace. Mumbai: Better Yourself Books 2003.
Dzurgba, A. (2010). Prevention and Resolution of Conflict: Local and International Perspectives. Ibadan: John. Archers Press.
Eric, N. (2003). The Impact of Political Violence on Tourism: Dynamic Cross National Estimation. New York: NY Press.
Gambari, I. A. (2008). Challenges of Conflict Resolution and the Role of Nigeria in Regional and Global Peace and Security. National Defence College Nigeria Graduation Lecture Series No.13 August.
Garver (2004). Violence defined in terms of physical force in J.M.G Van der Dennen (ed.) theories of political and social violence. New York: Free press.
Hafez, M. M. (2000). Armed Islamist movements and political violence in Algeria. The Middle East Journal 54(4) 9Autum 2000) 584.

Kerlinger, F.N. (1986). Foundations of behavioral research (3rd ed.). Fort Worth: Harcourt.

Kochhar, S. K. (1970). Secondary Administration. New Delhi: Sterling Publishers.

Kothari, C.R. (1990). Research Methodology and Techniques. New York: Wiley.

Mifflin, H. (2009). The American Heritage Dictionary of English Language. New York: Mifflin Publishers.
Mohammed, H. (2012). Nigeria’s convulsive federalism: perspectives on flashpoints of conflict in Northern Nigeria. Ibadan: Cypress concepts and solutions ltd.

Mouton, J. (2005). How to succeed in your Master’s and Doctoral Studies: A South African guide and resource book. Pretoria: Van Schaik Publishers.
Nieburg, N. L. (1969). Political Violence: The Behavioural Process. New York, St.Martins Press.

Ogle (2004). Violence defined in terms of physical force in J.M.G Van der Dennen (ed.) theories of political and social violence. New York: Free press.
Rochester, A. and Pearson, D. (1984). A Comparative Study of Civil Strife In H.D Hugh (ed.) Violence in America: Historical and Comparative Perspective. Washington, Govern Press.
Underwood, J. (2005). On peace and Poverty Ten years at the bank accessed September 2012 from htpp.www.discussworldbank.org/content/interview/detail/2058 2005.
Wolf, R.P. (1969). On violence. Journal of philosophy .66(19) pp602-606.
APPENDIX
SECTION A: SOCIO – DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF RESPONDENTS
INSTRUCTIONS: Please tick ? where applicable
1. What is your sex?
a) Male
b) Female
2. In which age range do you belong?
a) Less than 20 years
b) 20 – 29
c) 30 – 39
d) 40 – 49
e) 50 – 59
f) 60 +
3. What is your Marital Status?
a) Married
b) Separate
c) Divorced
d) Single
e) Widowed
4. What is your level of education?
a) No formal education
b) Primary education
c) Middle / JHS Education
d) SHS / Secondary Education
e) Tertiary education
f) Others (Specify)…………………….

5. What is your formal occupation?
a) Unemployed
b) Student / Apprentice
c) Former
d) Trader / Businessman
e) Artisan
f) Civil Servant
g) Others ……………..
SECTION B: FACTORS CONTRIBUTING TO POLITICAL VIOLENCE IN LUSAKA DISTRICT
1. What are the causes of political violence in Zambia?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..

2. What are the impacts of political violence on government legitimacy and recognition in Zambia?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
What are the impacts of political violence on the development of Zambia?
………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
SECTION C: STRATEGIES TO BE ADOPTED TO ADDRESS POLITICAL VIOLENCE IN LUSAKA DISTRICT OF ZAMBIA
1. What are the strategies can be adopted to address political violence in Lusaka district?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Thank you for your time!

x

Hi!
I'm Ava

Would you like to get a custom essay? How about receiving a customized one?

Check it out