Textbook: Chapter 6 - Military Circles who lose trust in

their regime, the people who

Class Discussion have the most potential to stage
Authoritarian Rule- Military and Elite Groups a coup
⅔ of the world live under an authoritarian world The dictator's survival depends on the
Hybrid Regimes- Result from Authoritarian relationship between him and his elites
experiments IV. Rise to Power
Kleptocracy- widespread because weakening Dictators need a launching
of institutions organization (e.g., military, single party)
Once a Benefit is Given- it cannot be taken Ex. Argentina's Military Junta
away unless its given something bigger Concentration of power into the dictator's
Areas authoritarian rulers exploit hands when democratic institutions are
1. Military weak
2. Influence forces they use coercion V. Personalist Dictatorships
3. Patronage- relationship between a Dictator becomes more paranoid and
patron and a client eliminates potential rivals
- weak because purely material Weakens military, political party,
legislative branch, judicial branch, and
bureaucracy
Preference for disorganized chaos over
TED Talk: How dictators fall dealing with the host of organized
groups
Objective: Understand the differences between - Regime is completely
dictatorships and their significance deinstitutionalized and
Barbara Geddes' definition of dictatorship: completely personalized under
Any regime that has no turnover in power of the the power of one particular leader
executive Highly kleptocratic, stealing large
II. Types Dictatorships are determined by volumes from their own people
who leads them. - They make the Country a part of
Political party dictatorship (e.g., their own
China's Communist Party) - No institutionalized procedures to
Military junta dictatorship (e.g., turnover power
Argentina during the 1970s and 80s) Which types of regimes tend to be more
One Leader Kleptocratic?
Personalist dictatorship (e.g., Mobutu - Personalist Regimes
in Zaire, Idi Amin of Uganda) - Hoard in large volumes,
Monarchy or ruling family no checks on this persons
dictatorship (e.g., Saudi Arabia) power to ensure or
Hybrid dictatorships- democracy and prevent this dictator from
authoritarianism stealing
III. Threats to Dictators - Mode of Exit: No
Most threats come from within the mechanism of Power
regime Sharing, extremely
violent
VI. Single Party Regimes and Monarchies - Zigzag power, they leave
Many people making decisions, policy power quickly then they
output is slow but with discussion come back
Institutionalized succession and clear VIII. Mode of Transition, why are they violent?
rules for power transition Sycophants- telling the dictator to be
Less paranoid and less kleptocratic more narcissistic
behavior compared to personalist Personalist Leaders are unable to
dictatorships separate themselves from the State.
China's leadership has totally - They cling the power until the
institutionalized succession so that it very end
takes place in an orderly fashion with Depends on the dictator's life after
little instability politics, day job, and potential
PAP ( ruling party ) of singapore has punishment
institutionalized succession so that it is a Some dictators are able to engineer their
seamless process own retirement and become elder
Other members of the party are able to statesmen
check the power of the leader and
prevent them from hoarding everything.
VII. Military Regimes
Average duration in power is about two
and a half years
Seize power quickly in a coup and then
decide to step down
They have a Day job and military
hierarchy create incentives to step down
Process of democratization is extremely
bumpy and goes in a zigzag fashion
- Step down when they are still
somewhat legitimate
- When they step down, they still
wage a lot of power in the military
budget ( ? )
- they buy the military people
- Communically recruited along
ethnic lines or religious lines like
the Syrian Military, they are going IX. Conclusion
to be likely to give up power, Understanding the differences between
ESPECIALLY if the ethnic group dictatorships is crucial for analyzing their
is tied to the regime. significance. Personalist dictatorships are the
- With Military Regimes, the most kleptocratic, while single party regimes
process of democratization is and monarchies have more checks on power
very bumpy. and are less kleptocratic

Required Reading 1: Sources of Popular
Support for
Authoritarian Regimes
● The paper shows that support for regime
policies depends heavily on citizens'
level of political awareness.
● highly aware persons are more heavily
exposed to government-dominated
communications media, but are also
better able to resist the propaganda they
encounter
● People in the broad middle ranges of
awareness-who pay enough attention to
be exposed but are not sophisticated
enough to resist typically are most
susceptible to government influence.
● We find that support for the
government's authoritarian policies tends
to be greatest among citizens who are
moderately sophisticated about
politics-people, that is, who pay enough
attention to be heavily exposed to the
government line but who are not
sophisticated enough to be able to resist
it
● Those most resistant to persuasion are
people who are both highly attentive to
politics and who are predisposed
(because of economic interest, prior
politicization, or personal values) against
authoritarianism
● The more extended the educational
experience, the more probable it is that a
person will be exposed to the
discussions of issues as they arise.
The study of political support for
authoritarian regimes is crucial for
understanding the dynamics of political systems.
The exposure-acceptance model, developed
by Barbara Geddes and John Zaller, is a
central framework for analyzing the formation of
political support.
Based on the search results, the key
points about the Brazilian regime are:
The Brazilian political system
underwent a significant shift in the
1960s. Prior to the 1960s, Brazil had a
multiparty democracy with competitive
elections, freedom of the press, and an
official commitment to racial equality,
though with some issues like corruption
and electoral fraud
In 1964, the military seized power in
a coup, promising a return to democracy
once the political situation stabilized.
However, the military regime subsequently
canceled elections, banned most
opposition, instituted strict media
censorship, and asserted firm control over
labor unions
The military regime pursued
developmentalist economic policies
similar to previous democratic regimes, but
made important changes like reducing real
wages and encouraging exports. The
government-controlled media portrayed the
regime in a very positive light, emphasizing
its economic achievements and portraying
it as resolving threats of chaos, while
downplaying its antidemocratic actions.
By the time of a public opinion
survey in 1972-73, the military had become
a highly trusted institution, with 59% saying
they could "always trust" or "trust in most
cases".A majority also expressed support
for "military involvement in national
politics".
The study found that support for the
authoritarian regime was strongest among
those who were politically aware enough
to be heavily exposed to the government's
positive messaging, but not sophisticated
enough to resist it. Support was weakest
among the least politically aware and those
predisposed against authoritarianism.
The authors suggest the patterns of
regime support can vary significantly across
different authoritarian countries, depending
on factors like the government's efforts at
indoctrination and citizens' access to
alternative sources of values.
Brazilian Political Traditions and
Authoritarian Intrusion:
● Brazil's political traditions before the
military regime were based on a
multiparty system, widespread but not
universal suffrage, unionization, and
worker participation in politics.
● The press and other media were
uncensored, and political leaders
stressed economic development and
social policy.
● The military regime, which came to
power in 1964, departed from these
traditions and implemented policies that
were heavily loaded on one side.
Resistance Factors:
● Resistance factors are variables that
affect the relationship between
awareness and support for authoritarian
policies.
● Resistance factors include personal
values, such as church attendance and
predispositions toward authoritarianism,
and political awareness, such as
education, political interest, media
exposure, and political participation.
● Resistance factors are expected to have
a negative effect on support for
authoritarian policies and a positive
effect on opposition to authoritarian
policies.
Support for Authoritarian Policies:
● Support for authoritarian policies is
measured using a summary scale that
includes items on press freedom, the
need to combat subversion, and
suppression of union activity.
● The scale has an alpha reliability of .88
and ranges from 0 to 1, with higher
scores indicating greater support for
authoritarian policies.
● The two scales (Support and Opposition)
enable tracking trends in support and
opposition separately.
The Mainstream Model:
● Predicts a straightforward, positive
relationship between political
awareness and support for the
regime's policies.
● Assumes that as people become
more politically aware, they will be
more likely to support the regime's
policies.
● Applies when the regime is simply
carrying forward settled policies from
previous democratic regimes,
without major efforts to build new
support.
The Exposure-Acceptance Model:
● Predicts a more complex,
non-monotonic relationship between
awareness and support for the
regime's policies.
 ● Suggests that support depends on
both exposure to the regime's
messaging and acceptance of that
messaging, which can vary based on
individual predispositions.
● Applies when the regime is actively
trying to build support for new,
non-mainstream policies that depart
from the previous democratic
consensus.
● The exposure-acceptance model is a
probabilistic framework that combines
the probability of exposure to a message
with the probability of accepting the
message.
● The model is used to analyze the
relationship between awareness and
support for a message.
● The model assumes that exposure rates
are identical in all populations, but
acceptance rates vary greatly.
● The model is applied to the Brazilian
case, where the military regime's policies
are analyzed in terms of exposure and
acceptance.
The key insight is that the relationship
between awareness and support depends
on whether the regime is promoting new,
controversial policies or simply continuing
established ones. For new, controversial
policies, the exposure-acceptance model
better captures the dynamics, with
awareness leading to greater exposure
but also potentially greater resistance
among those predisposed against the
regime's message.
In contrast, for policies that are continuous
with the previous democratic regime, the
mainstream model applies, and greater
awareness simply leads to greater
support, regardless of individual
predispositions. The search results
suggest the exposure-acceptance model
better explains support for the Brazilian
military regime's anti-democratic policies,
while the mainstream model applies to its
more "mainstream" economic policies.
Conclusion:
● Understanding the dynamics of political
support for authoritarian regimes is
crucial for analyzing the behavior of
political systems.
● The exposure-acceptance model,
combined with resistance factors,
provides a powerful framework for
analyzing the relationship between
awareness and support for authoritarian
policies.
● The Brazilian case study highlights the
importance of understanding the specific
departures from democratic traditions
under authoritarianism and the role of
resistance factors in shaping political
support.
Key findings from the study include:
1. Political Awareness and Support:
The research shows that support for
authoritarian regime policies is
heavily influenced by citizens' level of
political awareness. Highly aware
individuals are more exposed to
government-controlled media but are
also better able to resist propaganda.
People in the middle ranges of
awareness, who are exposed but not
sophisticated enough to resist, are
 most susceptible to government
influence.
2. Resistance to Persuasion: The
study highlights that individuals who
are highly attentive to politics and
predisposed against authoritarianism
are the most resistant to persuasion.
On the other hand, those who are
moderately sophisticated about
politics, paying attention but not
resisting, are more susceptible to
government influence.
3. Mainstream Model vs.
Exposure-Acceptance Model: The
research contrasts the mainstream
model, which predicts a positive
relationship between awareness and
support for mainstream political
norms, with the
exposure-acceptance model. The
exposure-acceptance model
suggests a non-monotonic
relationship between awareness
and support, especially when
political elites disagree or when
norms are changing.
4. Anticipating Support Patterns: The
study indicates that the mainstream
model applies when authoritarian
regimes continue settled policies
from previous democratic regimes. In
contrast, the exposure-acceptance
model is more relevant when regimes
seek to build support for new,
non-mainstream policies. It helps
anticipate patterns of support based
on citizens' predispositions and
levels of awareness.
● In summary, the research provides a
theoretical framework that helps
anticipate how different segments of
the population in authoritarian
regimes may respond to government
messaging and policies based on
their political awareness levels and
predispositions.
Required Reading 2: Autocratic Breakdown
and Regime
Transitions: A New Data Set
I. Introduction
● Autocratic regimes are a common form
of political organization in many
countries.
● Understanding the characteristics,
dynamics, and classification of autocratic
regimes is essential for comparative
politics.
● The literature on autocratic regimes has
identified various types of dictatorships,
including dominant-party rule, military
regimes, personalist dictatorships, and
monarchies.
II. Classification of Autocratic Regimes
● Barbara Geddes' classification of
autocratic regimes into dominant-party
rule, military regimes, and personalist
dictatorships is a widely used framework.
● The new data set on autocratic regimes
includes 280 regimes from 1946 to 2010
in independent countries with more than
one million inhabitants in 2009.
● The data set emphasizes identifying the
beginnings and ends of autocratic
 regimes and includes more information
about the emergence and collapse of
autocracies.
III. Dominant-Party Rule
● Dominant-party rule is characterized by
the dominance of a single party in the
political system.
● The ruling party can at times constrain
the dictator, and the regime can be
distinguished from unconstrained rule by
civilian strongmen.
IV. Military Regimes
● Military regimes are characterized by the
dominance of the military in the political
system.
● Military regimes can be distinguished by
the degree of collegiality and the
presence of explicit links to civilian
groups.
V. Personalist Dictatorships
● Personalist dictatorships are
characterized by the dominance of a
single individual in the political system.
● Personalist dictatorships can be
distinguished by the degree of
personalization of power and the extent
of the dictator's control over the political
system.
VI. Monarchies
● Monarchies are characterized by the
dominance of a single family or
individual in the political system.
● Monarchies can be distinguished by the
degree of hereditary succession and the
extent of the monarch's control over the
political system.
VII. Autocratic Regime Transitions
● Autocratic regime transitions can be
analyzed using data on regime duration,
leader tenure, and length of autocratic
spells.
● Autocratic regime transitions can be
driven by various factors, including
economic crises, political instability, and
leadership succession.
VIII. Conclusion
● Understanding the classification,
characteristics, and dynamics of
autocratic regimes is essential for
comparative politics.
● The literature on autocratic regimes has
identified various types of dictatorships
and their characteristics, which can be
used to analyze autocratic regime
transitions and political survival.
● The new data set on autocratic regimes
provides a valuable resource for
comparative politics research.
3 Possible outcomes when a dictator is
ousted:
1. Regime survival under new leadership
2. Democratization
3. Replacement by a new autocratic regime
Regime
- basic informal and formal rules that
determine what interests are represented
in the authoritarian leadership group and
whether these interests can constrain the
dictator. These interests in turn influence
the dictatorship’s policy choices, including
its responses to opposition challenges,
and thus how well it deals with
challenges and how it eventually
collapses.
Autocratic Regimes Data Set
- uses hitherto uncollected information to
identify all autocratic regime breakdowns
between 1946 and 2010 in countries with
populations greater than one million
Dictators who fear punishment after ouster
are more likely to start wars.
- Dictators who are ousted along with their
regimes and those whose regimes are
replaced by a new autocracy face higher
odds of punishment than those whose
 ouster either does not coincide with
regime change or leads to
democratization
Countries with regimes led by dictators with wide
personal discretion over policy making are less
likely to democratize after regime breakdown, as
are dictatorships forced from power and
dictatorships ended by violence.
- Even if foreign military intervention helps
to end repressive dictatorships, it may
not contribute to democratization.
Interest
- influence domestic policy choices and
international behavior
Leadership Groups
- small group that actually makes the most
important decision
- “Winning Coalition”
- a creative extension of William Riker’s
theory of minimum-winning coalitions in
democracies
Theories
- link economic performance to autocratic
survival, but analysts have sometimes
used democratization (e.g., Polity scores)
as a proxy for autocratic regime collapse,
leading to underestimates of autocratic
vulnerability to economic crisis
Autocratic
- A span of years is coded as such if any of
the following occurred and the same
basic rules and leadership group persist
in subsequent years
1. Undemocratic
- Any means besides direct,
reasonably fair, competitive
elections in which at least ten
percent of the total population
was eligible to vote; or indirect
election by a body, at least 60
percent of which was elected in
direct, reasonably fair,
competitive elections; or
constitutional succession to a
democratically elected executive.
2. Democratic
- The government achieved power
through democratic means (as
just described), but subsequently
changed the formal or informal
rules, such that competition in
subsequent elections was limited.
The start date is the date of the
rule change or action (e.g., the
arrest of opposition politicians)
that crossed the threshold from
democracy to autocracy
Autocratic regimes end when any of the
following occur:
1. A competitive election for the executive,
or for the body that chooses the
executive, occurs and is won by a person
other than the incumbent or someone
allied with the incumbent; and the
individual or party elected is allowed to
take office. The end date is the election,
but the end is only counted if the
candidate or party elected is allowed to
take power.
2. The government is ousted by a coup,
popular uprising, rebellion, civil war,
invasion, or other coercive means, and
replaced by a different regime (defined,
as mentioned, as a government that
follows different rules for choosing
leaders and policies). The end date is the
date of the ouster, death, resignation,
flight, or arrest of the outgoing regime
leader or the date when an insurgency
takes the capital.
3. The ruling group markedly changes the
basic rules for choosing leaders and
policies such that the identity of the
group from which leaders can be chosen
or the group that can select major
policies changes. The end date is the
date of the rule change.
Autocratic spell
- The consecutive calendar years a country
is ruled by some form of dictatorship. In
other words, it is the length of time a
country is undemocratic, regardless of
any other characteristics of rule. Spells
only end when democracy interrupts
them.

Polity scores
- Measure the “qualities of democratic and
autocratic authority in governing
institutions.” They depend on
characteristics such as the
competitiveness of elections and
executive constraints
- Measure regime characteristics that
reflect aspects of democraticness, but do
not identify the group that selects leaders
and implements policy changes, and thus
do not identify many of what would be
called regime changes by most analysts.

CGV
- Codes whether countries are democratic
or not, and if not, classifies the
dictatorship, according to whether the
leader is civilian, military (measured as
having ever worn a uniform), or
monarchic.