The consequences of trust and repression on the rise and fall of movements in authoritarian regimes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article analyzes the relation between interpersonal trust, repression, mobilization, and demobilization in authoritarian regimes. Does interpersonal trust impact mobilization in authoritarian regimes? Does an authoritarian regime’s strategies of repression and cooptation fuel distrust among movement actors and consequently lead to demobilization? Through relying on qualitative analysis in Egypt in the aftermath of the January 2011 uprising, I argue that interpersonal trust plays a significant role in the mobilization process of opposition movements. Yet, when movement members’ interpersonal trust levels and mobilizational capacities are high, authoritarian regimes utilize excessive repressive strategies to fragment and demobilize them. However, repression is not the only strategy utilized by regimes to demobilize the opposition. Other strategies, mainly cooptation and movement infiltration, are used by authoritarian regimes to fuel distrust among opposition movement actors and between movement actors and the citizens at large. These three strategies add to opposition movement’s fragmentation and demobilization.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".