Research framework and broader academic knowledge base
Serbia: documented application of the same framework
Why can the promise of order and stability make change seem more frightening than a bad present?
People do not only compare the bad present with a better future, but also with possible war, chaos, job loss or revenge of the winners. If society remembers the real crisis, such fear can be stronger than dissatisfaction with the everyday state. The government therefore presents itself as the only dam from danger, and each shift as a jump to the unknown.
It can further weaken institutions that would guarantee a peaceful transition, and then use the absence of these guarantees as an argument against change. Stability is a real public good and not every warning of manipulation. It is important to ask who produces the threat, whether there are verifiable protections for all parties and whether “order” means predictable rules or just the absence of visible conflict because opposition is too expensive.
Stability can be a real and important public good. One should still ask who produces danger, who pays the price of ‘order’ and whether there is a safer path to change.
Works supporting this answer, with their evidence type and an explanation of how they relate to the claim.
Explain how the system works
Linz, J. J. (2000), Totalitarian and Authoritarian Regimes, Lynne Rienner.
- Contribution to this answer
- Linz helps us understand why authoritarian government does not only survive on coercion: it limits political competition and the space of uncertainty around the shift of power, so the long-term absence of a real alternative can in itself change what citizens perceive as a normal and possible political order. But the book does not directly study the fear of change versus dissatisfaction with the current government.
comparing several countries or cases
Dukalskis, A. i Gerschewski, J. (2017), „What Autocracies Say (and What Citizens Hear): Proposing Four Mechanisms of Autocratic Legitimation“, Contemporary Politics 23(3): 251–268.
Dukalskis, A. i Gerschewski, J. (2017), "What Autocracies Say (and What Citizens Hear): Proposing Four Mechanisms of Autocratic Legitimation", Contemporary Politics 23(3): 251–268.
- Contribution to this answer
- Dukalskis and Gerschewski show that autocracies actively explain why they deserve power, and one of the possible foundations of legitimacy is the results and presentation of the existing system as one that works. This helps to understand the narrative “we bring order”, but the work does not test whether citizens are beginning to fear alternatives.
review more research
Gerschewski, J. (2023), The Two Logics of Autocratic Rule, Cambridge University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Gerschewski shows that some autocracy survives by depoliticization: instead of constant ideological mobilization they offer results, technocratic governance and political passivity of citizens. Such a system can make the existing order known and predictable, but the book does not directly test the psychological calculation “badly known is safer than unknown change”.
comparing several countries or cases
Haggard, S. i Kaufman, R. R. (2016), Dictators and Democrats: Masses, Elites, and Regime Change, Princeton University Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Haggard and Kaufman show that regime change depends much more on citizens’ dissatisfaction: the ability of people to organize, divide or co-operate among elites and institutions through which conflict takes place is important. That is why dissatisfaction in itself does not mean that change will become a real option but the book is not a study of fear of instability.
long-term direct monitoring of political life
Wedeen, L. (1999), Ambiguities of Domination: Politics, Rhetoric, and Symbols in Contemporary Syria, University of Chicago Press.
- Contribution to this answer
- Wedeen shows how long-lasting obedience rituals can make certain political behavior everyday and expected even when people do not trust regime messages privately. This helps to understand the normalization of the existing order, but does not directly show that people perceive change as more dangerous because of it.
Is a relevant source missing? Send it to us.
Suggest a source or report an error in this answer →