The answers given in his article in The New York Times New York University professor Bruce Bueno de Meskita and Alastair Smith, authors of the book "Textbook of dictators."
Why do some dictators are kept, and some are falling? Throughout history, the pathetic citizens tried to throw off the yoke of the oppressors, but such revolutions that swept the Arab world, are rare.
Despotic rulers stay in power by buying loyalty of their environment — the key military chief officials, members of the family or clan. The main duty of this environment — suppresses resistance to the regime. Perform this dirty, nasty job they can just being good awardees. Therefore autocrats should ensure a steady flow of benefits to its surroundings.
If the dictator's entourage refused to suppress mass protests or ready to defect to the enemy,
then comes the real threat. And this is the reason why successful autocrats reward their environment first, and people last. While those around him confident in accessing generous uznaragodav, the protest will be securely strangled. Three types of leaders are particularly vulnerable to the potential shoots his team: Cubs, weaklings and bankrupt.
Dictators-beginners do not know where the money is or whose loyalty they can buy cheaply and efficiently. Thus, transitional revolutionary-minded entrepreneurs can take a moment to overthrow the new, still wobbly regime.
An even greater threat lurks for the aging dictators. Their supporters are beginning to understand that the owner will not be able to pay them out of the grave. The weakness of the dictator weakens loyalty, and you can expect that the security forces during the uprising would rather sit on their hands than to strangle him, giving the masses the real possibility of revolution. This is what brought an end to dictatorship in the Philippines, Zaire and Iran.
The revolt in Tunisia and Egypt have strengthened not only rumors about the poor health of their leaders Zine Ben Ali and Hosni Mubarak, but also serious economic problems. Grain prices rose and fuel as well as unemployment, especially among the educated, and especially in the case of Egypt, it was the reason for the substantial reduction of American aid.
When money becomes scarce, leaders can not pay their surroundings, and there was no one who could stop people if they arise. This is exactly happened during the Russian or the French revolution or during the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe.
Today's threat of government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria can be seen in the same light. The projected current budget deficit of 7 per cent of GDP, lower oil revenues, the high level of youth unemployment are excellent revolution. Assad may againMyshlyaev, but we are sure that either he will make the necessary reforms, or someone sits down in his chair and do it.
"The viral spread" also plays a role during the revolution. When people find out that the leaders of neighboring countries can not buy loyalty, they feel and their ability changes. But it does not automatically follow revolutions. In many countries, especially in the rich countries of the Persian Gulf, protests or not, or whether they were depressed.
Leaders-autocrats in resource-rich countries have reliable sources of revenue to maintain its environment, and repression does not jeopardize the cash flow.
The abundance of natural resources explains why the octogenarian Robert Mugabe shows no desire to leave his post in Zymbabve, or why the oil-rich Colonel Muammar Gaddafi from the very beginning did not show any inclination to compromise. But when NATO bombs began to fall on Tripoli, Colonel realized that if you do not convince others that still remains that he is able to regain control of Libya's oil wealth, it turns away. If the rebels win, unfortunately, can be a way that they would suppress freedom in order to keep its control over oil wealth.
Leaders of the countries, the poor on natural resources, caught between a rock and a hard place. For them, it would be wise liberalizavatstsa in the bud. That is why we expect that countries such as Morocco or Raw conduct reforms in the coming years, despite the fact that they initially responded to the protests with repression. Such an incentive for democratization exists in many countries where there is no stock of natural wealth — like China or Yardaniya — and this is a bad omen for authoritarian rulers, and a good sign for the oppressed masses of the world.