Research framework and broader academic knowledge base
Serbia: documented application of the same framework
When do the police or military refuse to suppress a protest, and when do they remain loyal to the government?
Police or the military usually remain with the government while they believe that the government is strong enough to reward and protect them, and that disobedience would be more dangerous than the execution of orders. They can refuse to suppress the protest when they estimate that the top is shared, that the number of citizens is too large, that violence will destroy the reputation and unity of the service or that after the change of government they could be held accountable.
It is also crucial whether there is a safe way to refuse an order together, and not as lonely individuals. A large protest can change these estimates, but the number of people in itself is not enough: the duration, organization, behavior of elders and signals from the political top are important. The decision of the services and the forces of the protest change each other, so there is rarely only one cause of the reversal.
Rejection of the order is rare and changes along with the protest: a larger protest affects the services, and their behavior affects the number of people on the street. That is why there is usually no single cause.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
comparing several countries or cases
Barany, Z. (2016), How Armies Respond to Revolutions and Why, Princeton University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Barany shows that the military in a crisis does not automatically respond in favor of the regime: it can defend the government, refuse to shoot or divide, depending on internal cohesion, relationship with the leader and assessment of the protests.
data from a large number of countries
Chenoweth, E. i Stephan, M. J. (2011), Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict, Columbia University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Chenoweth and Stephan show that the transitions of members of the security services and other pillars of the regime to the side of the nonviolent campaign are one of the key mechanisms of the success of mass resistance.
data from a large number of countries
Paine, J. (2022), „Reframing the Guardianship Dilemma: How the Military’s Dual Disloyalty Options Imperil Dictators“, American Political Science Review 116(4): 1425–1442.
- Contribution to this answer
- Paine shows that military disobedience can have two directions: the military can try to impeach the dictator or it can refuse to protect him. The organization of civil-military relations affects which risk is more likely.
comparing several countries or cases
Svolik, M. W. (2012), The Politics of Authoritarian Rule, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Svolik explains the broader relationship between the leader and the coercive apparatus: the military is necessary for the survival of the regime, but at the same time it is one of the actors capable of endangering the leader. That is why its loyalty is never fully given.
data from a large number of countries
Beissinger, M. R. (2022), The Revolutionary City: Urbanization and the Global Transformation of Rebellion, Princeton University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Beissinger shows how mass urban revolts can quickly change the balance of forces and the perception of the sustainability of the regime. For a concrete decision by the military or the police to refuse repression, the work is broader, but it describes the political context in which defection becomes possible.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →