Reducing Violence: Pathway to Democracy Introduction Ebook Tooltip Ebooks kunnen worden gelezen op uw computer en op daarvoor geschikte e-readers.

There is an opinion that the majority of citizens in authoritarian regimes act irrationally. The Gini index is growing, it shows the stratification of society into the poor and the rich, but the citizens still do not unite around the opposition leader to overthrow the mossy government and establish a fair order, for example, a beautiful Russia of the future.
The opposition accuses citizens of inertia and backwardness, cowardice and conformity. Opposition figures imagine an average citizen as an overgrown child who is not aware of his interests.
The reason for this view is the conviction that there is a direct relationship between revolutionary activity and the plight of citizens. Some people are convinced that a linear relationship works: the poorer people are, the more likely they are to make revolutions.
I object to this point of view.
Firstly, if I see that another person is behaving irrationally, it will be a big mistake for me to think that he is a fool, that notorious other. Most likely, I'm the stupid one. Because the game I play concerns me, and the other person is not at all obliged to play it. If I see that another person is behaving irrationally, it means that I do not understand the game he is playing. The problem is not with the other person, but with myself. I need to go deep into reflection and understand the game of the other.
Second, in the social sciences, for the most part, there are non-linear relationships. This is due to the subject of social sciences. We are not studying a person, but an abstract entity that thinks and acts, creates norms and depends on them, depends on external conditions and on its own ideas. At the same time, a person changes both. The name of this abstract entity is stakeholder . If I see a linear relationship in social interaction analysis without the influence of both internal and external at the same time , which means that I am making a mistake in theoretical construction.
Thirdly, if there are no boundaries, then the theoretical construction is false. What should be poverty and poverty for citizens to take to the streets and overthrow the hated authoritarian regime? Do they have to starve? Need food, clothing, and shelter? Or maybe the impoverished middle class overthrows authoritarian regimes?
The answers to these questions are given by the “five pirates” game, from which counterintuitive consequences follow: in authoritarian regimes, citizens prefer to maintain tyranny, they agree on successors, but not on new autocrats; the opposition in authoritarian regimes always strives to preserve tyranny; the distribution of the social pie is extremely unfair and leads to the stratification of society and the appalling poverty of some and the insane accumulation of wealth by others.
The Five Pirates Game, while showing the basic conditions for maintaining and strengthening an authoritarian regime, also makes the conditions for the overthrow of tyranny transparent to understanding. And no, this is by no means a knock with rifle butts at the gates of palaces.