When dictators liberalize in an attempt to co-opt opposition groups, they are trying to strengthen their hold on power. If they miscalculate and assume that the opposition is weak when in fact it is strong, their liberalizing attempts might embolden the opposition groups and eventually lead to a democratic transition. But if the opposition group is actually weak, and the dictator mistakenly thinks it is strong, then the dictator will not dare to liberalize in the first place, which is unfortunate for civil society whose members could have benefited from the liberalization. If you were a member of the opposition (civil society) and you were interested in a transition to democracy, or at least a liberalization of the regime, would you be better off in the situation in which the dictator
(liberalizers) knew for sure the exact strength of civil society, or in the situation in which the dictator was uncertain whether civil society was strong or not?
A. The opposition is always better off under conditions of certainty.
B. The opposition is always better off under conditions of uncertainty.
C. It would depend on whether the opposition was strong or weak. A weak opposition would prefer certainty, but a strong opposition would probably prefer uncertainty.
C. It would depend on whether the opposition was strong or weak. A weak opposition would prefer certainty, but a strong opposition would probably prefer uncertainty.
You might also like to view...
? Lay out the basic arguments for and against a federal system of government and take a stance on this disagreement.
What will be an ideal response?
The theory of relative deprivation suggests that unrest is most likely to occur when
a. a sustained period of declining conditions is followed by a sudden, sharp economic improvement for a narrow segment of society. b. a sustained period of declining conditions is followed by a sudden, sharp setback for a narrow segment of society. c. a sustained period of improving conditions is followed by a sudden, sharp economic improvement for a narrow segment of society. d. a sustained period of improving conditions is followed by a sudden, sharp setback for a narrow segment of society.
Comparative advantage suggests that states
a. produce only goods that can be produced most cost efficiently and trade for the rest. b. compare and adjust their economic development strategies in order to gain advantage. c. produce only goods with high value added comparative advantage. d. produce pizza instead of beer.
Assume you have been hired by the governor of Texas to figure out a way to increase the power of that office in the legislative process. Which board would you suggest that the governor be allowed to join, and why?
What will be an ideal response?