The central weakness of closed, authoritarian regimes is poor signaling.
Kruszev and Deng wouldn't have been able to seize power without substantial supporter.
The way I see it, the failure of those in power (from their perspective) was of not recognizing that well of support as it built.
Or, put another way, this is why authoritarian regimes are always paranoid: they have no objective methods for gauging public / party / military support, as dissent is always private.
Kruszev and Deng wouldn't have been able to seize power without substantial supporter.
The way I see it, the failure of those in power (from their perspective) was of not recognizing that well of support as it built.
Or, put another way, this is why authoritarian regimes are always paranoid: they have no objective methods for gauging public / party / military support, as dissent is always private.
(Well, aside from secret police)