Builds on Unit 3 - Democracy by examining the opposite pole of regime types — authoritarianism and non-democratic rule — and then turns to the contentious politics that arise inside and against such regimes.
Key Concepts
- Authoritarian regimes vary dramatically: totalitarian, theocratic, personalistic, bureaucratic-authoritarian, and hybrid.
- Regime change is not unidirectional — democracies can break down and slide into authoritarianism.
- Four major theories explain the emergence and persistence of authoritarian regimes: historical institutionalism, poverty/inequality, state weakness, and political culture.
- Monarchy is not automatically authoritarian: absolute monarchies concentrate power in the monarch, while constitutional monarchies can be fully democratic (the monarch reigns but does not rule).
- Hybrid regimes (electoral authoritarianism, competitive authoritarianism, illiberal democracy) blur the line between democracy and full authoritarianism.
- Contention — conflict outside formal institutions — ranges from social movements and revolutions to insurgencies, terrorism, and everyday resistance.
- Four theories explain why revolutions happen: relative deprivation, resource mobilization/political opportunity, rational choice, and cultural/framing theory.
- The Arab Spring (2011) illustrates how the same conditions produce vastly different outcomes depending on state capacity, oil wealth, and the military’s willingness to repress.
Part I — Chapter 7: Authoritarian Regimes and Democratic Breakdown
What Is Authoritarianism?
Authoritarianism describes political systems that are hierarchically ordered and have relatively closed decision-making processes. All authoritarian regimes share the denial of free and fair elections and the restriction of civil rights, but they differ in three important dimensions:
| Dimension | Description |
|---|---|
| Degree of pluralism | How much independent political activity is tolerated |
| Ideology | Whether the regime propagates an overarching ideology (e.g., communism, fascism) or simply governs |
| Human rights violations | Whether the regime leaves citizens alone (if apolitical) or aims to control every aspect of their lives |
Remember
Not all authoritarian regimes are equally repressive. The key variable is the extent to which the regime seeks to control citizens’ lives.
Types of Authoritarian Regimes
Totalitarian Regimes
Totalitarian regimes are the most extreme form of authoritarian rule. They aim to control the totality of society — thought, culture, economy, and daily life.
Key features:
- Propagation of an official governing ideology to which all must conform
- Use of secret police, informants, and surveillance to eliminate dissent
- A single ruling party often led by a cult-of-personality figure
- State control of the economy to prevent rival power bases
- Use of prisons, work camps, and mass executions against “undesirable” elements
Historical Examples
- Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler
- Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin
- North Korea (contemporary)
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were each responsible for millions of deaths in the mid-twentieth century.
Common Mistake
Some analysts argue totalitarianism was a Cold War propaganda concept. However, it remains a useful analytical category because it captures important variation between regimes that aim to control everything versus those that allow greater latitude.
Theocracies
A theocracy is an authoritarian state controlled by religious leaders, or one that imposes strict religious restrictions and uses religion as its main mode of legitimation.
- Common in the premodern world; less common today
- Contemporary examples: Iran; Saudi Arabia (an absolute monarchy that relies heavily on religious legitimation)
Iran as a Hybrid Theocracy
After the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Iran became a theocracy under religious leaders (clerics). Yet it still holds contested elections — placing it in a narrow democratic band policed by religious authorities. Most scholars regard it as highly authoritarian despite quasi-democratic features.
Monarchies (Absolute vs. Constitutional)
A monarchy is a political system in which a monarch (typically hereditary) serves as head of state. Monarchies can be authoritarian or democratic depending on where actual governing power sits.
| Type | Where political authority sits | What elections do | Typical regime implication |
|---|---|---|---|
| Absolute monarchy | Monarch (and close court/royal networks) | If present, are weak/controlled | Often authoritarian (closed decision-making, limited rights) |
| Constitutional monarchy | Elected government under a constitution; monarch has limited/ceremonial role (sometimes “reserve powers”) | Choose the government (parliament/PM) | Often democratic (monarchy is compatible with parliamentary democracy) |
How to Classify a Monarchy
Don’t code “monarchy” as authoritarian by default. Ask: Can citizens remove the government through free and fair elections? If yes, the system can be democratic even with a monarch.
Examples
- Constitutional monarchies: United Kingdom, Japan, Sweden, Spain
- Absolute (or near-absolute) monarchies: Saudi Arabia, Brunei, Eswatini
Personalistic Dictatorships
Personalistic dictatorships (also called “sultanism”) involve domination of a political system by a single individual who concentrates power and governs as he or she sees fit.
- Distinct from totalitarianism: may not aim to establish an overarching ideology
- Justifications: public interest, anti-subversion, economic progress, or “democratic Caesarism” (the idea that a society is “not yet ready” for democracy)
- Notable examples: Mobutu Sese Seko (DRC), Jean-Bedel Bokassa (Central African Republic), Idi Amin (Uganda)
Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Regimes
Bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes are focused on an organized bureaucracy — most often the military — rather than a single leader.
- Common in Latin America and Asia in the mid-to-late twentieth century
- Less ideological and more pragmatic than totalitarian regimes
- Justified by the need for order and economic progress
- Can be right-wing or left-wing
- Example: Argentine military in the 1970s (infamous for torture and executions)
A related sub-type is the party dictatorship, where a party rather than an individual holds power. Example: China under the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
What This Can Look Like
In practice, bureaucratic-authoritarian rule can take forms such as:
- Military junta — a committee of senior officers governing collectively
- Single-party state — a ruling party dominates the state and excludes meaningful competition (e.g. Cuba, Vietnam)
- Plutocracy — rule heavily shaped by (or serving) wealthy elites, even if the military/bureaucracy formally governs (e.g. Burma/Myanmar)
Military Juntas
A military junta is a form of authoritarian rule where a committee of officers governs collectively (often after a coup). Juntas typically claim legitimacy through “restoring order,” fighting corruption, or protecting national sovereignty.
Common dynamics:
- Collective leadership (at least initially), with power shared among senior officers
- Rule by decree and restrictions on parties, media, and protest
- Suspension/revision of constitutional order, often paired with promises of “transition” later
- Factionalism risk: because power is shared, juntas can fracture and produce counter-coups or a shift toward a single strongman
Niger (July 2023)
On July 26, 2023, Niger’s military detained President Mohamed Bazoum and announced a takeover, establishing junta rule. The episode illustrates how rapid seizures of executive control can produce an authoritarian regime even without a single-party apparatus or a mass ideology.
Hybrid and Semi-Authoritarian Regimes
After the third wave of democratization (1970s–1990s), many regimes sought to appear compliant with democratic norms while maintaining authoritarian control. This produced a proliferation of hybrid regime labels:
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Illiberal Democracy | A polity with some democratic features but where political and civil rights are not fully guaranteed |
| Delegative Democracy | Democratic but involves the electorate “delegating” significant authority to the executive; limited accountability |
| Electoral Authoritarianism | Authoritarian regimes that nominally compete in elections |
| Competitive Authoritarianism | Allows some political competition but not enough to qualify as fully democratic |
Exam Alert
Competitive authoritarianism is not the same as democracy. The key: the regime exerts control through elections that are nominally competitive, not despite them. As Hernando de Soto put it about Peru in the 1980s–90s: “we elect a dictator every five years.”
Types of Transition (or Non-Transition) to Authoritarianism
Authoritarian Persistence
Authoritarian persistence is the ongoing continuation of an authoritarian regime without democratic transition.
Two main kinds:
- Single regime persistence — the same regime persists despite internal changes (e.g., China’s Communist Party under Mao vs. under Deng Xiaoping — radically different policies, same basic regime)
- Substitution of one authoritarian regime for another — one flavour of authoritarianism replaces another (e.g., Iran: secular Shah → theocratic Islamic Revolution)
Strategies of regime maintenance include:
- Producing economic benefits (growth, patronage, clientelism)
- Repression of protest and dissent
- Limiting access of opponents to information, media, and public space
Democratic Breakdown
Democratic breakdown (authoritarianization) is the transition from a democratic to a non-democratic regime.
Three key patterns:
- Voters elect authoritarians — a populist candidate promises order and anti-corruption, then dismantles institutions (e.g., fills courts and legislature with loyalists)
- Organized societal actors move against democracy — military coups, strikes, capital flight; most dangerous when the military loses faith in the democratic regime
- Revolution — regime change through mass mobilization; can lead to democracy or greater authoritarianism
Classic Cases of Democratic Breakdown
- Weimar Republic → Nazi Germany (1933): economic collapse, weak institutions, lack of popular commitment to democracy
- Chile (1973): coup against Allende government → Pinochet dictatorship
- Venezuela under Maduro: gradual slide from flawed democracy to authoritarianism
Transition to Hybrid Regimes
Hybrid regimes can emerge from either direction:
- Democratic → Hybrid: democratic institutions erode as a populist leader packs courts, legislature, and electoral authorities with loyalists (resembles Venezuela)
- Authoritarian → Hybrid: partial and superficial democratization, often as performance for international audiences (resembles Russia under Yeltsin/early Putin)
Remember
Russia under Putin is a classic example of competitive authoritarianism: electoral politics combined with strong authoritarian features, state repression of opponents, and manipulation of elections.
Causes and Effects: Why Do Authoritarian Regimes Emerge and Persist?
1. Historical Institutionalist Theories
Historical institutionalist theories focus on critical junctures where either authoritarian institutions are formed or coalitions supportive of authoritarian rule are established.
Key insight (Barrington Moore): The presence or absence of a bourgeoisie (middle class) at the time of political modernization determines outcomes:
- Strong middle class → likely liberal democracy
- Weak middle class → likely authoritarian coalition of elites (landlords, military, church)
Barrington Moore's Core Argument
Social Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (1966): Moore examined class structures in societies during the passage to modernity. Without a strong middle class, agrarian elites might ally with the military to produce right-wing authoritarianism, or elites might form an alliance with peasants producing left-wing authoritarianism.
2. Poverty and Inequality
Economic deprivation theories suggest that:
- People struggling for basic needs are less likely to prioritize political rights and liberties (“survival values” dominate)
- International survey research confirms: as economic development increases, prioritization of political freedoms increases
- Income inequality also favors authoritarianism — high inequality can be exploited by populist authoritarian leaders promising to avenge injustice
Acemoglu and Robinson
Economic Origins of Dictatorship and Democracy (2006): Elites choose democracy only when the costs of repression are high and they expect to retain sufficient resources under democracy. If democratization threatens dramatic elite privilege loss, they choose repression.
Exam Alert
This does NOT mean poor people don’t value political rights — it means they are less able to successfully press for democratization when survival needs dominate.
3. State Weakness and Failure
Weak or failing states are more likely to yield authoritarian politics.
- Strong, well-institutionalized states are less personalistic and resist co-optation by private actors
- Predatory states: one group captures the state and uses it for the group’s own benefit (e.g., Somoza family in Nicaragua held an absurdly high percentage of the country’s territory as personal property)
- Paradox: well-institutionalized strong states are less likely to become authoritarian, but if they do, they are more likely to become totalitarian (totalitarianism requires a strong state)
4. Political Culture Theories
The beliefs, norms, and values of a country’s citizens can shape regime type.
Almond and Verba (The Civic Culture, 1963) identified three cultural orientations:
| Cultural Type | Description |
|---|---|
| Parochial Culture | Population largely distant from politics; low trust in the state and others |
| Subject Culture | Higher investment in the state than parochial; lower trust than participatory; citizens feel unable to influence politics |
| Civic/Participatory Culture | High trust in government and other actors; citizens believe they can shape political decisions |
Parochial and subject cultures are associated with higher likelihood of authoritarian persistence.
Common Mistake
Political culture theories are controversial. Critics note that authoritarian rulers often claim their citizens lack a democratic culture (e.g., Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew on “Confucian values”), conveniently justifying their own rule.
5. Barriers to Collective Action (Rational Choice)
Rational-choice theories argue that authoritarian persistence lasts because it is irrational for any individual actor to take the necessary steps to provoke a transition, even if most people privately want change.
Key concept — preference falsification (Timur Kuran): Under repression, people publicly overstate support for authoritarianism. When safety allows, they express true preferences, triggering a cascade.
Kuran's "Now Out of Never" (1991)
Applied to the East European revolutions of 1989: Those most opposed to the regime begin to speak out first; if they face no repercussions, more follow, producing a cascade. This explains why these revolutions seemed to come “out of nowhere.”
Special Case: Hybrid Regimes and Competitive Authoritarianism
Levitsky and Way (Competitive Authoritarianism, 2010) argue:
- Competitive authoritarian regimes are not transitional — there is no reason to assume they will become democratic
- Linkage to the West (trade, communication, civil society ties) predicts movement toward democratization
- Without Western linkage, two paths: (a) ongoing authoritarianism if the state is strong, or (b) authoritarianism with instability if the state is weaker
Case Study: Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s authoritarianism can be analyzed through all four theoretical lenses, illustrating that multiple theories can each find supporting evidence — and potentially disconfirming evidence — for any given case.
| Theory | Explanation | Supporting Evidence | Contrary Evidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Historical Institutionalist | Elite coalitions favor domination | Military and key economic actors support regime | Regime alienated commercial farmers and industry |
| Poverty and Inequality | Poor citizens seek security, allow authoritarian rule | Populist appeal to poor citizens | Regime was unpopular among many peasants and urban poor |
| State Weakness | Weak, predatory state is authoritarian | Regime engaged in predatory behavior, undermined institutions | State and party exhibited considerable capacity at times |
| Political Culture | Cultural values shape regime type | Regime worked within top-down “tribalism” | Zimbabwe’s culture has deep emphasis on human rights |
| Collective Action | Disapproval impeded by repression | Regime created large numbers of exiles | Dissent has been widespread and organized |
Exam Alert
The Zimbabwe example teaches a key methodological lesson: disconfirming evidence is as valuable as supporting evidence. Good comparativists look for evidence against theories, not just evidence for them.
Part II — Chapter 12: Revolutions and Contention
What Is “Contention”?
Contention refers to behavior that occurs mostly outside of formal political channels. In democratic societies, conflict is often channeled through elections and legislatures, but formal politics is sometimes insufficient.
Contention encompasses:
- Social movements
- Social revolutions
- Insurgencies and civil wars
- Terrorism
- “Everyday forms of resistance”
The fundamental distinction is between revolutionary contention (which aims to radically transform social, political, and economic relationships) and non-revolutionary contention (which aims for reform or incremental change).
Types of Contention
Social Movements
Social movements are probably the most normal form of organized conflict in advanced industrial democracies and are considered a healthy part of civil society.
Characteristics:
- Organized collective action over time in pursuit of common purposes
- Distinguished from spontaneous protests (riots, mobs) by underlying coordination via social networks
- Aim at reform, not radical structural transformation
Key organizational dynamics:
- Social movement organizations — formal bodies created to maintain and lead movement activity
- Iron law of oligarchy (Robert Michels): organizational leadership creates its own interests; every movement tends to create a new elite
- Effective mobilization requires diffusion (spreading of participation), brokerage (connecting previously disconnected actors), and new coordination
Social Media and Contention (Tufekci, Twitter and Tear Gas, 2017)
Social media lowers coordination costs but creates hidden disadvantages: easier organization may produce weaker sustained commitment, and large-scale protests may no longer effectively signal organizational capacity the way they once did.
Revolutions
Revolutions must be:
- Relatively sudden
- Transformative — either in intent or actual consequences
- Involve some level of popular mobilization
Types of revolutions:
| Type | Description | Example |
|---|---|---|
| Social Revolution | Transforms both social structures and political institutions; changes the class system | French Revolution, Russian Revolution of 1917, Chinese Revolution |
| Political Revolution | Changes political institutions (the state) without necessarily transforming social/economic structures | Anti-Soviet revolutions of 1989–1991 in Eastern Europe |
| Anti-Colonial Revolution | Made against colonial powers to achieve national independence | Mid-twentieth century decolonization movements |
| Third-World Revolution | Revolutions in the developing world with special dynamics tied to international networks of power | Various Latin American and African revolutionary movements |
Common Mistake
A coup d’état is not a revolution. Coups are typically elite-driven (by the military), whereas revolutions necessarily involve mobilization of groups beyond those holding formal power. However, if a coup responds to ongoing public mobilization, scholars may classify it closer to a revolution.
Social vs. Political Revolutions
- The Russian Revolution of 1917 was a social revolution: it nationalized industries, redistributed land, and transformed the class structure.
- The anti-Soviet revolutions of 1989 were political revolutions: they changed political institutions (replacing Soviet satellite states with democracies) but their primary aim was not the direct transformation of class structures.
Insurgencies and Civil Wars
Insurgencies are enduring, organized, armed actors contesting the power of the state. They shade into revolutions but are distinguished by the degree of formalization of military conflict.
Conditions that promote insurgency:
- Government oppression of a region, class, or group
- Political system that does not allow other avenues for grievance expression
- A weak state (neither insurgents nor state is strong enough to decisively win → guerrilla stalemate)
Guerrilla tactics are designed to produce an ongoing stalemate in situations of asymmetric military capability, often leading to protracted conflicts spanning years or decades.
Terrorism
Terrorism is challenging to define. Core issues in any definition:
- Who is perpetrating the violence (state vs. non-state actors)
- Who or what is the target (civilians, military, infrastructure)
- The goals, purposes, or consequences of the violence
| Definition Breadth | Scope |
|---|---|
| Broad | States can be terrorist actors; no distinction on target type — includes “state terrorism” |
| Moderate | Excludes violence directed at military targets in wartime |
| Narrow | Terrorism = violence by non-state actors against civilians to instill fear and bring about political change |
Types of terrorism:
- Demonstrative terrorism — seeks publicity
- Destructive terrorism — oriented toward coercion
Terror Networks (Sageman, Understanding Terror Networks, 2004)
Many contemporary terrorist organizations (e.g., al Qaeda) operate as decentralized “small world networks” rather than formal hierarchies. This makes them resilient — removing the “leader” does not destroy the network. However, decentralization also creates inefficiency.
Everyday Resistance
Everyday resistance (James Scott, “weapons of the weak”) — forms of resistance used by subaltern groups who lack organizational resources for formal mobilization.
Characteristics (Scott):
- “Require little or no coordination or planning”
- “Make use of implicit understandings and informal networks”
- “Often represent a form of individual self-help”
- “Typically avoid any direct, symbolic confrontation with authority”
Examples: work stoppages, slowdowns, boycotts, sabotage, symbolic storytelling that challenges power relations.
Why everyday resistance instead of social movements or revolutions?
- Repressive authoritarian states make organizing too dangerous
- Geographic or social isolation prevents coordination (e.g., dispersed rural villages with poor communication)
- Individualization of problems — barriers to recognizing shared interests
Causes and Effects: Why Do Revolutions Happen?
Theory 1 — Relative Deprivation (Strain Theory)
Revolutions occur when rapid social change creates disequilibrium, causing groups to experience relative deprivation — having or feeling less than one’s reference group (including one’s own group over time).
Key insight: Major revolutions sometimes occur during or just after periods of economic growth, not only during decline, because upward and downward mobility upset established conventions and create aspirations that rigid institutions cannot satisfy.
Tocqueville effect: Changing relative status positions were important in the French Revolution — groups whose position improved felt entitled to more.
Huntington and Gurr
- Huntington (Political Order in Changing Societies, 1968): Revolution occurs when political institutional development lags behind economic and social modernization. “Ascending or aspiring groups and rigid or inflexible institutions are the stuff of which revolutions are made.”
- Gurr (Why Men Rebel, 1970): Focused on relative deprivation as the social psychology linking modernization to dissent.
Theory 2 — Resource Mobilization and Political Opportunity
These theories focus on supply rather than demand. They assume that discontent is constant; what matters is whether conditions allow would-be revolutionaries to mobilize.
Key political opportunities:
- State breakdown — the most important: when the state loses the ability to carry out core functions and stifle dissent
- Elite conflict — divisions among ruling elites
- Military discontent — the coercive apparatus becomes unwilling to repress
- New communication technologies — reduce coordination costs
Key resources:
- Preexisting mobilization patterns — e.g., factory workers with a history of union organizing
- Organizational resources — formal organizations that can coordinate early mobilization
- Material resources — weapons, meeting places, supplies
Skocpol's Structural Theory ( States and Social Revolutions, 1979)
Skocpol identified two necessary conditions for social revolution:
- State collapse (provoked by foreign conflict), which divides elites
- Conditions facilitating peasant revolt (preexisting capacity for mobilization among the rural poor)
Critics argue it is too mechanistic and leaves out human agency, culture, and ideology.
Theory 3 — Rational Choice
Rational choice theory asks: under what conditions does it become rational for an individual to participate in revolution?
The free-rider problem: Since individual participation is unlikely to make the decisive difference, and since there are personal costs to participation, the self-interested rational actor should abstain and hope others do the work.
| Revolution Succeeds | Revolution Fails | |
|---|---|---|
| Join | Collective benefits + personal costs of participation | Personal costs (jail, violence) |
| Don’t Join | Collective benefits for free | No costs, no benefits |
Revolution becomes rational when:
- Both sides impose costs on individuals (no safe abstention)
- The state is weak and many are already participating (the cost of joining drops)
- Participants can credibly promise rewards to revolutionaries
Lichbach's The Rebel's Dilemma (1995)
Extends Olson’s collective action logic to revolutions. The central problem: how do revolutionary movements solve collective action problems? Solutions include increasing benefits, increasing the possibility of winning, and lowering individual costs.
Theory 4 — Cultural / Framing Theory
Cultural theories argue that material conditions alone are insufficient to produce revolutions. People need cultural frames — shared narratives that make contentious action intelligible, legitimate, and actionable.
Key claims:
- Revolution is only possible when the idea of revolution already exists as a model for addressing discontent
- Nationalism is one of the most common modern frames that enables revolutionary action
- “Political cultures of opposition” (existing networks of dissent with shared interpretive frameworks) make revolution more likely
- Ideas and ideologies shape revolutionary strategy and outcomes
Iranian Revolution (1979)
Often used to challenge existing theories: it was a conservative, religious revolution rather than a left-wing secular one. The coalition included religious leaders (Ayatollah Khomeini), secular Marxists, and middle-class students. The Iranian case enhances the plausibility of cultural/framing theories because religious ideas played a central causal role.
Summary: Conditions Favoring Successful Contention
Drawing from all four theories, most scholars agree the following conditions increase the likelihood of successful contention:
- Preexisting grievances felt by one or more groups
- Weakening of repressive institutions — but without sufficient political opening to resolve disputes via formal channels
- New methods or means of organizing and communication (technological or organizational)
- Sufficient organizing success such that actors perceive a reasonable chance of further success
- Frames — ways of talking about social problems that point toward contention rather than quiescence as the solution
- Organizational leadership that maintains unity rather than fracturing
Case Study: The Arab Spring (2011) and Its Legacy
Beginning in Tunisia (2011), a wave of contentious action swept North Africa and the Middle East, toppling some regimes and destabilizing others.
The key comparative puzzle: Why did the same conditions produce successful transitions in some countries, failure in others, and no contention at all in Saudi Arabia?
Net Oil Exports (Barrels/Day, 2009 — thousands)
| Country | Net Oil Exports |
|---|---|
| Tunisia | 5 |
| Egypt | 85 |
| Libya | 25 |
| Syria | 117 |
| Saudi Arabia | 7,322 |
2010 Per Capita Income (USD)
| Country | Per Capita Income |
|---|---|
| Tunisia | $4,222 |
| Egypt | $2,654 |
| Libya | $11,321 |
| Syria | $2,931 |
| Saudi Arabia | $15,836 |
Arab Spring Outcomes Summary
| Country | Oil Exporter | Theocratic | Economic Discontent | Military Willing to Repress | Outcome |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tunisia | N | N | High | No | Successful transition |
| Egypt | N | N | High | No (initially) | Initial transition; reversed |
| Libya | Y | N | Moderate | Yes | NATO intervention needed |
| Syria | N* | N | High | Yes | Civil war, state breakdown |
| Saudi Arabia | Y | Y | Low | Yes (presumably) | No major contention |
*Syria derived considerable oil revenues relative to its economy despite small share of global market.
Hypotheses generated from this comparison:
- Relative Deprivation theory — Demographic pressure (young adults, few jobs) + declining status → demand for change; explains Tunisia, Egypt, Syria but not Saudi Arabia (low economic discontent)
- Political Opportunity theory — State’s failure to repress early protests → cascading participation; explains success in Tunisia and Egypt (military did not fully repress) vs. failure in Libya and Syria (military did repress)
- Rational Choice theory — Changing state capacity altered the cost-benefit calculus: when repression seemed likely to fail, joining became rational
- Framing theory — The spread of the very idea of “Arab Spring” as a frame for action cascaded across borders; Saudi Arabia’s religious legitimation made this frame harder to apply
Why Syria Was Different
Two factors distinguished Syria’s protracted, violent conflict:
- Foreign intervention — External powers (Russia, US) extended the conflict by resourcing different sides
- Religious heterogeneity — Deep sectarian divisions turned political conflict into identity-based violence, especially in the context of state breakdown
Methodological Note: Deviant / Negative Cases
Saudi Arabia is a negative case — it shares many conditions with the countries that experienced contention but did not. Negative cases are analytically valuable because they force re-examination of which variables are truly causal. Without Saudi Arabia in the comparison, oil exports and religious legitimation would seem irrelevant; including it makes them critical.
Connecting the Two Chapters
| Theme | Chapter 7 (Authoritarianism) | Chapter 12 (Revolutions & Contention) |
|---|---|---|
| Regime change direction | Democracy → authoritarianism is possible | Contention can produce democratic or authoritarian outcomes |
| Role of the state | State weakness promotes authoritarianism; state strength can enable totalitarianism | State breakdown is the most important political opportunity for revolution |
| Role of elites | Elite coalitions at critical junctures set authoritarian institutions | Revolutions involve both elite and subaltern actors |
| Collective action | Barriers to collective action explain authoritarian persistence | Overcoming collective action problems explains successful revolutions |
| Culture and ideas | Political culture shapes likelihood of authoritarianism | Cultural frames are necessary for revolutionary action |
Definitions
Authoritarianism Political systems that are hierarchically ordered and have relatively closed decision-making processes; deny free and fair elections and restrict civil rights.
Totalitarian Regime A form of authoritarian rule that aims to control everything about the lives of its subject population — thought, culture, economy, and social life — through an official ideology, secret police, and mass mobilization. Examples: Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, contemporary North Korea.
Theocracy An authoritarian state controlled by religious leaders, or a state with very strict religious restrictions that uses religion as its main mode of legitimation. Examples: Saudi Arabia, Iran.
Personalistic Dictatorship A form of authoritarianism in which the personality of the dictator is highlighted and a single individual concentrates power and governs as he or she sees fit. Also called sultanism, autocracy, despotism.
Bureaucratic-Authoritarian Regime A type of authoritarian regime, common in Latin America and Asia in the mid-to-late twentieth century, associated with control of the state more by a group of elites (often military) than by a single individual leader.
Illiberal Democracy A polity with some democratic features but in which political and civil rights are not all guaranteed or protected.
Delegative Democracy A hybrid form of regime that is democratic but involves the electorate “delegating” significant authority to the government, with limited accountability between elections.
Electoral Authoritarianism A label applied to situations in which authoritarian regimes nominally compete in elections to appear compliant with democratic norms.
Competitive Authoritarianism A form of government or regime that allows some political competition but not enough to qualify as fully democratic; the regime exercises control through nominally competitive elections.
Democratic Breakdown The transition from a democratic to a non-democratic regime; also called authoritarianization.
Authoritarian Persistence The ongoing continuation of an authoritarian regime, such that democratic transition does not take place.
Hybrid Regime A class of regime that appears to be neither fully democratic nor fully authoritarian, combining elements of both.
Preference Falsification The public misrepresentation of one’s true political preferences, typically out of fear of repression; common under authoritarian regimes and can mask widespread dissent until conditions change (Timur Kuran).
Contention Behavior that occurs mostly outside of formal political institutions, including social movements, revolutions, insurgencies, terrorism, and everyday resistance.
Collective Action Joint efforts by individuals and groups to bring about a shared, preferred outcome.
Constitutional Monarchy A monarchy in which the monarch’s powers are limited by a constitution and, in practice, executive authority is exercised by an elected government (often in a parliamentary system). Constitutional monarchies can be fully democratic.
Absolute Monarchy A monarchy in which the monarch holds substantial governing authority and political power is not meaningfully constrained by democratic institutions (e.g., free and fair elections, protected civil liberties). Absolute monarchies are commonly authoritarian.
Plutocracy Rule by the wealthy (or governance primarily serving the interests of the rich), whether through direct control of the state or through systematic capture of policy and institutions.
Military Junta A governing committee of military officers that rules collectively, often emerging from (or consolidating power after) a coup d’état.
Single-Party State A regime in which one political party dominates the state and either bans opposition parties or permits them only on terms that prevent meaningful competition; often overlaps with party dictatorships.
Social Movements Ongoing, organized collective action oriented toward a goal of social change; distinguished from spontaneous protests by coordination and sustained mobilization.
Social Revolutions Revolutions that dramatically change both social and political structures — transforming how power and material resources are distributed among groups (e.g., the class system).
Political Revolutions Revolutions for which the main effect is to alter political institutions rather than social and economic structures.
Anti-Colonial Revolutions Revolutions brought by subjugated populations against colonial powers, typically to achieve national independence.
Coup d’État The use of force or threat of force, typically by the military or a coalition involving the military, to impose a non-electoral change of government; typically elite-driven, distinguished from revolutions by the lack of broad popular mobilization.
Insurgency Enduring, organized, armed actors contesting the power of the state; distinguished from revolutions by the degree of formalization of military conflict.
Guerrilla Tactics Military techniques designed to produce an ongoing stalemate, usually employed in situations of asymmetric military capability.
Terrorism The use or threat of violence for political ends; definitions vary by who perpetrates it (state or non-state), who is targeted (civilians or military), and the goals of the violence.
Everyday Resistance Efforts by subaltern groups to resist or obstruct authority without clearly organized coordination over time; includes work stoppages, slowdowns, boycotts, and sabotage (James Scott: “weapons of the weak”).
Relative Deprivation The state of having or feeling that one has less than other members of one’s reference group (including one’s own group over time); a key trigger for revolutionary demand according to strain theory.
Absolute Deprivation A condition of being deprived of resources below some given threshold, as distinguished from relative deprivation.
State Breakdown A dramatic decline in state capacity, considered the most important “political opportunity” for successful revolution.
Free-Rider Someone who benefits from a collective or public good without contributing to it; the free-rider problem is central to rational choice explanations of why collective action is difficult.
Framing The way in which a given problem or situation is described and understood, with implications for how it might be addressed; cultural frames are necessary for revolutionary action to be perceived as legitimate.
Iron Law of Oligarchy The idea, developed by Robert Michels, that collective action always produces new elites as organizational leaders develop their own interests separate from the movement’s goals.
Mobilization The engagement of individuals and groups in sustained contention; dependent on overcoming collective action problems and building organizational resources.
Subaltern Occupying lower rungs in a hierarchical system; subaltern groups typically lack the resources for formal mobilization and may resort to everyday resistance.
Civil Society A space in society outside the organization of the state in which citizens come together and organize themselves; social movements operate in this space.
Social Networks Structures of social ties and connections among individuals that facilitate communication, coordination, and mobilization.