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.

Question

Quizplus · Accepted Answer

If the opposition is weak, they would prefer certainty as the dictator is more likely to liberalize in order to co-opt them, while uncertainty might lead to the dictator not initiating any liberalization. However, if the opposition is strong, they would prefer uncertainty as the dictator might be more cautious and hesitant to crack down on them if they believe the opposition is stronger than it actually is. This could create opportunities for the opposition to grow stronger and eventually push for democratic reforms. Therefore, it would depend on the strength of the opposition as to whether they would prefer certainty or uncertainty.

When Dictators Liberalize in an Attempt to Co-Opt Opposition Groups