Search

This paper examines the relationship between repression and mobilization interactively and dynamically, focusing in particular on event-driven and contextual influences on repressive practice and opposition response to those practices within liberalizing authoritarian regimes. In periods of relative stability, oppositions in highly repressive states know clearly the limits of acceptable action imposed by the state and adjust their collective action repertoires accordingly, in most cases adopting less confrontational and safer modes of action. But in periods of political change, when repressive practice is in flux, a high degree of uncertainty surrounding those limits is introduced. Usually, as part of the liberalization of authoritarian regimes, the sense among state officials concerning what constitutes acceptable force narrows, and the types of situations in which regimes intervene forcefully also narrow. Repressive practice in this sense moves from preclusion to regulation, with opposition activity coming to be screened rather than prohibited. This constriction of repressive practice itself alters public expectations about how regimes will and should respond to opposition challenge. Yet, the continued practice of repression stands in stark contrast with liberalizing goals, potentially undermining faith in regime-sponsored change and generating backlash protest. Liberalization also creates new institutional arenas?in the media and the ballot box?where repression against opposition activity can potentially generate side effects, altering voting habits, shaping public opinion, and further complicating how regimes can apply force against oppositions. In this paper, I show that continued repressive practice by a liberalizing authoritarian regime is shaped in significant ways by patterns of institutional change, by the rhythms and character of opposition activity, and by event-specific influences. Thus, as we will see through the late Soviet example, liberalizing authoritarian regimes usually take care not to repress during periods of major institutional reforms intended to remake the face of the regime (such as electoral campaigns), backlash effects have a particular influence on repressive practice when they become politicized within newly opened parliamentary arenas or publicized by independent media, and the degree to which opposition forces gain control over segments of the state substantially alters repressive practice. The data is drawn largely from an analysis of 4,839 demonstrations that took place in the Soviet Union from January 1987 (when glasnost? roughly began) through August 1991 (when the Soviet state collapsed), covering the protest acts of 16 different nationalities that engaged in a significant record of protest acts during this period and that experienced some degree of government repression in response to those acts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines how members of egalitarian intentional communities define and engage in social and political activism. Specifically, their reactions to traditional activism are examined as well as how they have redefined activist behaviors in their own lives. Comparisons are made to communal groups of the 1960s and 70s and to how communal scholars have often labeled communitarians as being apolitical. Using in-depth interviews, member's actions and beliefs are examined through the lens of new social movement theories. This study provides needed data on empirically neglected egalitarian intentional communities within the United States. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]