Street-level Autocrats: Individual Decisions with Collective Consequences

“Street-level Autocrats” focuses on the interactions between ordinary people, formal sources of authority in society (especially the security apparatus), and informal sources of authority both during and after armed conflicts and mass uprisings. The actions of the security forces are vital for understanding what happens when opposition movements—be they violent or non-violent—challenge a regime, as well as what happens after the conflict comes to an end. If a large share of the military and police decide to desert and join the opposition, the days of the regime are likely to be numbered. The actions of the security apparatus also matter for people’s relationship to informal sources of authority both during and after conflict. If a policing vacuum emerges, other sources of authority may step in—and that authority may endure into the post-conflict era. That is, the actions of the security apparatus—who one can think of as ‘street-level bureaucrats’ or, in the case of authoritarian regimes, ‘street-level autocrats’—during the conflict also matters for the post-conflict regime’s legitimacy and, possibly, long-term stability. People’s perceptions of the actions of the security apparatus, including whose side they were on, are likely to have an enduring impact on their trust in the security apparatus, the regime itself, as well as alternative sources of authority in society. To investigate these dynamics, the project includes three large data collection efforts. First, the project team has collected a new dataset on security apparatus defection during violent and nonviolent conflicts, which covers 283 opposition campaigns in 108 countries between 1970 and 2013. The dataset allows for systematic empirical analysis of how the interactions between citizens and members of the security apparatus shape both conflict and post-conflict dynamics. It stands apart from existing datasets by disaggregating security apparatus defection, so that researchers can track, for example, whether it is members of the military or police who defects, how widespread it is (mass defections or elite defections), as well as timing. Second, the project team has contributed to a new global dataset of both pro- and anti-democracy movements. While existing datasets focuses on pro-democracy movements and, thus, do not capture mass movements that contribute to democratic backsliding, this datasets maps both movements that demand more liberal policies and those that demand less liberal policies. The dataset—which covers 148 countries between 1900 and 2020, including 250 distinct campaigns—will play a key role in future research examining the interactions between the regime (including the security apparatus) and mass movements. Third, in order to examine ordinary people’s perceptions of conflict and post-conflict dynamics, the project team has conducted two public opinion surveys, in Northern Ireland and Ukraine. These surveys were postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic and, in the case of Ukraine, the Russian invasion, but they were eventually fielded in 2022. The survey in Northern Ireland hones in on people’s decision to participate in violent or non-violent resistance and their perceptions of the army, police, and various paramilitary groups both during and after the 30-year long conflict known as ‘the Troubles’, while the survey in Ukraine focuses on why and how people have mobilized after the Russian invasion in February 2022. The project team has disseminated their research to academic audiences, the public, and policy makers and practitioners. Academic dissemination has taken place through conferences and workshops and through publications in journals such as the British Journal of Political Science, Economics of Peace and Security Journal, European Journal of International Relations (forthcoming), International Studies Quarterly, Journal of Peace Research, Security Studies, and Political Research Quarterly (forthcoming). There are seven project-related working papers underway, in preparation for submission in 2023. The project team has also drawn on their research to comment on current events (such as citizen reactions to states’ Covid-19 restrictions, the 2020 pro-democracy protests in Belarus, the 2021 riots in Northern Ireland, the war in Ukraine, the prospects of regime change in Russia, and mass media freedom and autocratic dissent), in Aftenposten, The Conversation, Eurasia Daily Monitor, Morgenbladet, The Washington Post, blogs and podcasts via the Peace Research Institute Oslo and University College London, and appearances on NRK television. Finally, the project team has engaged stakeholders. In June 2022, for example, they co-organized an academic-practitioner workshop on the future of protest, bringing together activists and scholars for two days of discussion about opposition strategies in different movements (environmental movements, human rights movements, pro-democracy movements) and countries (Belarus, Ukraine, UK).

The project’s research speaks to and advances scholarship on the interactions between ordinary people, formal sources of authority (especially the security apparatus), and informal sources of authority both during and after conflicts. The reach academic audiences, the project team has disseminated work-in-progress at conferences and workshops and published findings in international peer reviewed journals. In addition to the already published results, there are seven working papers underway, in preparation for submission in 2023. Beyond the research results, major enduring contributions of the project are the datasets on defection and opposition movement groups, which are designed to complement and improve existing datasets. The two public opinion surveys conducted (in Northern Ireland and Ukraine) will be valuable to the growing comparative body of work on public opinion in conflict-affected settings. In developing the project, the team has emphasized early career researcher development, and three of the project’s research assistants are co-authors on already published articles or works in progress, as well as op-eds. The project team has drawn on their research to comment on current events (such as citizen reactions to states’ Covid-19 restrictions, the 2020 pro-democracy protests in Belarus, the 2021 riots in Northern Ireland, the war in Ukraine, the prospects of regime change in Russia, and mass media freedom and autocratic dissent). This includes commentaries and shorter analysis pieces in both national and international outlets, such as Aftenposten, The Conversation, Eurasia Daily Monitor, Global Voices, Morgenbladet, NRK Ytring, NRK Svarer, The Washington Post’s Monkey Cage, blogs and podcasts via PRIO and UCL, as well as appearances on NRK television and radio. Members of the project team has also engaged in public talks and seminars related to the war in Ukraine. The research conducted as part of this project is of interest to both governments and activists working to protect democracy and human rights, as well as stakeholders engaged in efforts aimed at fostering post-conflict stability. As such, the team has engaged stakeholders through participation in meetings bringing together academics and policy-makers, for example on the war Ukraine, as well as organized events that bring together activists and academics. In June 2022, members of the team co-organized a workshop at UCL on the future of protest, enabling two days of in-depth discussion among activists (from different movements and countries) and scholars about protest strategies and interactions with the state’s security apparatus. In December 2020, members of the team co-hosted well-known activist Srdja Popovic, a long-standing pro-democracy activist, at PRIO, in a public event that also featured the former Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs. These kinds of events contribute to extend and deepen existing relationships with stakeholders, as well as create new ones.

The decisions made by individual members of a regime's security forces directly affect the ability of that regime to stay in power. Recognizing when security forces stay loyal and when they defect is critical for understanding both regime change and stability. We extend the study of military loyalty and ?street-level bureaucrats? beyond the familiar environs of Western public bureaucracies to study the security apparatus of autocratic governments (hence, ?street-level autocrats?). The central idea behind the notion of street-level bureaucrats/autocrats is that individual discretion and decision-making autonomy influence the manner in which policy is implemented and enforced. When ordered to use force to quell protests, members of the police and military do not always comply. Individual policemen and soldiers may refuse to follow orders or may even join the protesters. Our approach stands in contrast to existing research, which fails to adequately consider the motivations and actions of all actors within the ruling coalition, from the incumbent government down to the individual member of the security apparatus, such as the soldier on the street. Our approach also stands in contrast to the tendency to study either the opposition side or the incumbent side when analyzing failed or successful regime changes. We use a mixed-methods approach combining in-depth case studies, large-N quantitative analysis based on new data we collect, including public opinion surveys, as well as game-theoretical analysis. These approaches are complementary; the quantitative analyses allow us to identify general patterns across a wide set of cases, while the qualitative analyses allow us to test the causal mechanism. We propose that accounting for the actions of these street-level autocrats?the individual policemen and soldiers that make up the security apparatus?is fundamental to fully understanding both regime transition and the stability and legitimacy of the order that emerges.