Search
Browse By Day
Browse By Time
Browse By Person
Browse By Mini-Conference
Browse By Division
Browse By Session or Event Type
Browse Sessions by Fields of Interest
Browse Papers by Fields of Interest
Search Tips
Virtual Exhibit Hall
Change Preferences / Time Zone
Sign In
X (Twitter)
Most major nonviolent civil resistance campaigns target autocratic regimes. Yet most dictators are toppled by their close supporters, not civilian protesters. Building on theories of strategic interactions
between leaders, security agents, and protesters, we make three core claims. First, protesters are relatively less likely to mount a major nonviolent uprising against dictatorships with personalized security forces since these dictatorships have partially mitigated,
via loyalty mechanisms, the moral hazard in employing security agents against protesters. Second, personalized security forces are more likely to repress the realized protest since their fate is tied more closely to that of the dictator. Finally, security force
personalization shapes the prospects for success of mass uprisings in toppling dictatorships and promoting democratic transitions. We leverage new data on security force personalization -- a proxy for loyal security agents -- and major nonviolent protest campaigns
to test these expectations. Our theory explains why many dictatorships rarely face mass protest mobilization and why uprisings that are met with violent force often fail in bringing about new democracies.