The Architecture of Upheaval: Catalytic Events, Preference Revelation, and the Transformation of Political Grievances

1. Introduction: The Analytical Puzzle of Catalytic Events

The study of modern political movements is consistently confronted by a profound analytical puzzle: why do superficially similar catalytic events generate radically different socio-political consequences? In certain historical and contemporary instances, a seemingly isolated incident—a minor economic shock, a highly publicized revelation of corruption, or an episode of state violence—triggers a cascading mobilization that ultimately topples a government or fundamentally restructures a nation’s institutions. In other cases, practically identical events yield only localized rioting, ephemeral media outrage, and rapid normalization. To understand this divergence, it is necessary to independently investigate the role of catalytic events in transforming accumulated political grievances into support for fundamental system change.

For the purposes of this analysis, "revolutionary preference" is defined narrowly and rigorously. It is strictly the sustained public support for replacing or fundamentally restructuring major political or economic institutions. It must not be conflated with a temporary surge in anti-system anger, episodic rioting, or transient protest attendance1. True revolutionary preference requires a cognitive and behavioral shift toward systemic overhaul, rather than mere expressive signaling or temporary frustration.

The central thesis of this report is that a catalytic event does not independently manufacture revolutionary preference. Rather, a catalyst acts as a cognitive and informational trigger. It matters primarily because it interacts with a highly specific set of preexisting structural conditions. When these preconditions are present, a catalyst initiates non-linear mechanisms of preference revelation, overcomes collective action thresholds, and induces moral shocks that rapidly alter the perceived political efficacy of the populace4.

This report develops and tests a comprehensive model of catalytic interaction, utilizing comparative evidence from the United States, Chile6, South Korea, Sri Lanka, France, and Hong Kong. It systematically evaluates whether major events genuinely change underlying political preferences or merely reveal preferences that were already present but hidden by social pressure. Finally, it explores the role of institutional responses in either providing an off-ramp for grievances or accelerating the escalation toward fundamental system change.

2. The Interaction Model: Preconditions and Catalytic Triggers

A catalyst cannot ignite a vacuum. The transformative potential of any high-profile event depends entirely on the structural tinder awaiting it. The interaction model developed herein posits that an event’s political meaning is determined by the activation of specific, preexisting vulnerabilities within the state and society.

2.1 The Architecture of Preconditions

For a catalyst to successfully convert latent pressure into a sustained revolutionary preference, several of the following structural preconditions must be present and overlapping5:

1. Accumulated Grievance: A long-term buildup of unresolved societal complaints, often stemming from systemic inequality, racial discrimination, or perceived historical injustices. These grievances provide the narrative fuel for mobilization.
2. Low Institutional Trust: A pervasive belief that the state apparatus is fundamentally corrupt, inept, or biased. When trust in the judiciary, the executive, and the press is low, citizens are primed to bypass ordinary remedies.
3. High Network Connectivity: The physical and digital infrastructure that allows for rapid horizontal communication. High connectivity reduces the friction of mobilization, allowing grievances to bypass traditional gatekeepers8.
4. Existing Organizations: The presence of latent or active civil society groups, labor unions, or activist networks that can immediately provide logistical support, tactical framing, and leadership once a catalyst occurs.
5. Elite Division: Fractures within the ruling class, military, or political establishment. When elites are divided, the state’s capacity to deploy cohesive repression diminishes, signaling vulnerability to the populace10.
6. Collective Identity: A shared sense of belonging among the aggrieved population (e.g., class, ethnicity, generational cohort) that allows an injury to one to be perceived as an injury to all.
7. Economic Insecurity: A baseline of material precariousness. Populations struggling with inflation, unemployment, or resource scarcity have lower opportunity costs for engaging in high-risk political behavior.
8. Belief That Ordinary Remedies Have Failed: A societal consensus that voting, petitioning, and legal challenges are futile. This cognitive shift is required to legitimize extra-institutional action11.

2.2 Typology of Catalysts

Catalytic events are sudden, highly salient disruptions that alter the informational environment. They serve as focal points for collective attention. While their specific forms vary, their function is to alter the perceived utility of political mobilization.

3. The Micro-Foundations of Mobilization: Psychology and Network Dynamics

To understand how the aforementioned catalysts interact with preconditions, the analysis must deconstruct the micro-foundations of collective human decision-making under stress. This requires synthesizing political psychology, sociology, and network theory.

3.1 Preference Falsification and Pluralistic Ignorance

The most robust theoretical framework for understanding the suddenness of revolutionary mobilization is the theory of preference falsification, pioneered by Timur Kuran3. In any society, individuals possess private preferences (their true beliefs) and public preferences (what they express outwardly). When a regime or a prevailing social consensus is perceived as punitive, individuals engage in preference falsification—they hide their true revolutionary desires to avoid social ostracism, economic ruin, or state violence15.

Because a vast majority of the population may simultaneously falsify their preferences, public opinion becomes a highly distorted metric. A regime may appear invulnerable, enjoying superficial compliance, while privately, a vast majority of the population despises it. This dynamic creates a state of "pluralistic ignorance," wherein citizens are deeply alienated but remain unaware of how widely their anti-establishment grievances are shared17.

A catalytic event disrupts this equilibrium by serving as an undeniable informational signal. When a highly visible event occurs—such as undeniable state brutality or catastrophic economic mismanagement—it prompts a small vanguard of individuals to publicly express their outrage18. If this initial protest is not immediately crushed, it signals to the broader population that the regime is vulnerable. This triggers an "information cascade." As more people reveal their true preferences, the reputational and physical costs of joining the opposition plummet, while the costs of remaining loyal to the regime rise21. The result is an explosive mobilization that catches both the regime and the participants by surprise, famously illustrated by the sudden collapse of Eastern European communism in 19893.

3.2 Threshold Models of Collective Behavior

Closely aligned with preference falsification is the threshold model of collective behavior, articulated by Mark Granovetter20. Granovetter posits that the decision to join a protest or riot is a binary choice determined by an individual's unique "threshold"—the specific number or proportion of other people who must participate before that individual feels safe or motivated enough to join25.

A given population is characterized by a distribution of these thresholds. "Instigators" have a threshold of zero; they will protest regardless of the actions of others, driven by profound ideological commitment or intense personal grievance. "Moderates" may have a threshold of 10%, meaning they will only join if a significant, normalizing crowd has already formed. "Conservatives" may have a threshold of 80%, requiring nearly universal consensus before altering their behavior20.

A catalytic event functions by lowering the thresholds of a critical mass of early adopters. This is often achieved through the mechanism of a "moral shock"—an unexpected, highly emotional event that violates deeply held moral boundaries, prompting immediate action regardless of personal risk4. Once the instigators mobilize, they satisfy the thresholds of the next tier of individuals, creating a non-linear chain reaction23.

Crucially, Granovetter’s model demonstrates that populations with identical average private preferences can produce radically different political outcomes based purely on the precise distribution of individual thresholds and the density of the social network20. If a catalyst fails to mobilize the crucial 1% or 2% threshold group—perhaps due to immediate and overwhelming state repression—the cascade halts entirely. This mathematical reality explains why many seemingly potent grievances remain latent and never materialize into mass movements.

3.3 Bounded Rationality and Cognitive Shortcuts

While threshold models assume a degree of rationality regarding costs and benefits, the diffusion of revolutionary preference is heavily influenced by bounded rationality, as detailed by Kurt Weyland's research on the contagion of revolution30. During periods of high political uncertainty, individuals and movement leaders do not possess the time or information necessary to conduct exhaustive cost-benefit analyses. Instead, they rely on "inferential heuristics," specifically the availability heuristic and the representativeness heuristic31.

When a catalytic event occurs elsewhere (e.g., a successful uprising in a neighboring country), it becomes highly "available" in the public consciousness via media saturation. Citizens overrate the significance of the foreign event and overestimate the structural similarities between the context of the catalyst and their own domestic environment35.

For example, during the Arab Spring in 2011, activists across the Middle East utilized cognitive shortcuts, observing the successful ouster of the regime in Tunisia and jumping to the conclusion that their own autocrats could be similarly toppled. This cognitive leap ignored the vast differences in state security apparatuses, military loyalty, and economic resilience across different nations35. Weyland's framework explains the rapid, transnational contagion of protests following a single external catalyst, but it also explains why such movements frequently fail: the cognitive shortcut masks the absence of the deep organizational capacity required for true revolutionary success32.

4. The Analytical Core: Preference Revelation vs. Preference Change

To understand the longevity and systemic impact of a catalytic event, one must determine whether the event fundamentally altered the political preferences of the population (preference change) or merely provided the opportunity for citizens to safely express preexisting desires for system change (preference revelation)36.

4.1 Experimental Evidence and Network Density

The distinction between preference change and revelation is empirically observable in modern protest environments. In studies of Hong Kong's anti-authoritarian movement (2016-2019), researchers utilized conjoint survey experiments and field experiments to track how peer information alters protest behavior10.

When citizens were provided with truthful information regarding the expected turnout at an upcoming protest, their behavior diverged based on the perceived density of the movement. In 2016, when subjects held beliefs of high expected participation (an average posterior belief of approximately 143,000 attendees), informing individuals about the high citywide turnout actually decreased their willingness to protest. In this context, protest acted as a "strategic substitute" (the bystander effect)7. However, in subsequent years, when baseline expectations of turnout were more modest (around 50,000), providing information that others were participating turned protest into a "strategic complement," increasing individual turnout41.

The Hong Kong data reveals that underlying preferences for democratic autonomy and post-materialist values were already deeply entrenched due to structural economic inequality and political disenfranchisement40. The catalytic events—such as the introduction of the 2019 extradition bill—did not suddenly manufacture a desire for democracy. Rather, the bill acted as a profound moral shock that altered the expected utility of expressing those preferences. The movement was a massive exercise in preference revelation, driven by information cascades where observing millions on the street validated the private truths held by the citizenry40.

4.2 The Asymmetry of Preference Dynamics

The sociological literature suggests a fundamental asymmetry in how social behaviors diffuse based on preference types. Prosocial behaviors (e.g., peaceful, coordinated reform demands) tend to emerge continuously and are subject to strategic substitution in highly dense networks41. Antisocial or high-risk revolutionary behaviors, however, exhibit strategic complementarity—they emerge discontinuously and suddenly. When a catalyst exposes state weakness, the sudden revelation of radical preferences creates an immediate shockwave7.

However, true preference change is exceptionally rare in the short term. Preference change requires sustained discursive framing, demographic shifts, and ideological grooming over years or decades. Catalytic events almost exclusively operate on the axis of preference revelation. If a population does not already harbor a latent, private desire for system change, no amount of catalytic shock will successfully manufacture a revolution. This theoretical reality explains the consistent failure of external state actors to instigate popular uprisings in hostile territories without a preexisting foundation of structural domestic grievance.

5. Agenda Seeding and the Impact of State Responses

A catalyst does not operate in a historical or institutional vacuum. The state's immediate institutional and physical response to an initial catalytic event is a critical variable that dictates whether a movement escalates into a revolution, normalizes, or faces severe backlash. The way protests interact with state forces dictates the media framing, which in turn shifts broader public opinion.

5.1 State Violence and the Mechanics of Agenda Seeding

Political scientist Omar Wasow's extensive research on the 1960s civil rights protests demonstrates the concept of "agenda seeding"44. Marginalized groups, lacking direct access to the levers of power, use disruptive tactics to capture media attention and overcome political asymmetries. Wasow’s evaluation of black-led protests between 1960 and 1972 reveals that when nonviolent protesters are met with state repression or vigilante violence, the mainstream media frames the event primarily through a sympathetic "civil rights" lens44.

This framing directly shifts the median voter toward the protesters' cause, generating sympathetic public opinion and favorable electoral outcomes. Wasow found that counties proximate to nonviolent protests saw presidential Democratic vote share increase by 1.6 to 2.5 percent45.

Conversely, when protests escalate into protester-initiated violence or rioting, the media framing immediately shifts to "social control" and law-and-order narratives45. This sparks a conservative backlash, alienating the persuadable majority and destroying support for systemic change. Wasow's data indicates that violent protests in 1968 likely caused a 1.5 to 7.9 percent shift among white voters toward the Republican party, effectively tipping the presidential election44.

In modern contexts, state violence captured on digital media acts as an accelerant. It continually renews the moral shock, validating the movement's core grievances and lowering the threshold for new participants to join the mobilization. However, if the movement loses its tactical discipline and engages in widespread violence, it seeds an agenda of social control that ultimately fortifies the state apparatus it sought to dismantle.

6. Comparative Case Studies: Superficially Similar Events with Divergent Outcomes

To rigorously test the catalyst model, it is necessary to compare high-salience incidents followed by major political mobilization with superficially similar incidents that were followed by rapid normalization or failure.

6.1 The United States: George Floyd (2020) vs. Michael Brown (2014)

The police killings of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri (2014) and George Floyd in Minneapolis, Minnesota (2020) serve as highly comparable catalysts48. Both involved the death of unarmed Black men at the hands of law enforcement, and both triggered significant unrest. Yet, the scale and impact of the mobilizations were vastly different.

In 2014, the Ferguson protests birthed the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, but the mobilization remained relatively localized and episodic1. By contrast, the murder of George Floyd triggered the largest wave of protests in American history, spanning thousands of cities globally and introducing demands for fundamental systemic restructuring, summarized by the demand to "Defund the Police"51.

Why did the 2020 catalyst produce a radically larger response? The answer lies in the intersection of the catalyst with altered preconditions:

1. Organizational Infrastructure: By 2020, the BLM movement had spent six years building organizational capacity, framing the narrative, and establishing digital networks. The infrastructure that was nascent in 2014 was fully operational in 202050.
2. The Pandemic Context: The COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented economic insecurity, psychological stress, and high network connectivity (as populations were confined to digital spaces). The pandemic lowered the opportunity costs of protest and heightened systemic anxiety48.
3. Unambiguous Evidence: The clear, visceral video of Floyd’s death provided a profound moral shock that bypassed traditional media gatekeepers and ambiguity, satisfying the mobilization thresholds for millions of moderate citizens instantly1.

6.2 London 2011 (Mark Duggan) vs. George Floyd

To further isolate the variables, compare the George Floyd protests to the 2011 London Riots, which were triggered by the police shooting of Mark Duggan2. Both events involved controversial police killings of Black men. However, the London riots rapidly devolved into widespread, indiscriminate looting and arson without articulating a coherent demand for systemic change2.

Applying Wasow's agenda-seeding framework, the protester-initiated violence in London immediately seeded a narrative of criminality and social control57. It alienated the median British voter, ensuring that no broad-based coalition for systemic police reform could materialize. The catalyst triggered acute rioting, but failed entirely to generate revolutionary preference because it lacked the tactical discipline and organizational framing required to sustain public sympathy.

7. Empirical Successes: High-Salience Incidents and Structural Transformation

When a catalyst successfully interacts with preconditions and maintains tactical discipline, it can force fundamental system change. Two modern examples illustrate this trajectory.

7.1 South Korea: The Candlelight Revolution (2016-2017)

The South Korean political crisis of 2016 provides a textbook example of a catalytic event interacting with high network connectivity to produce system change. The catalyst was a high-profile corruption revelation: in October 2016, reports exposed that President Park Geun-hye was allowing a personal confidante, Choi Soon-sil, to illegally influence government policy and extort conglomerates58.

While political corruption was not entirely novel in South Korea, the bizarre, cult-like nature of the scandal provided a profound moral shock. Crucially, this catalyst interacted with highly favorable preconditions: a highly educated, digitally connected populace, a history of deep-seated labor grievances, and a well-established civil society accustomed to mass mobilization11.

The resulting "Candlelight Revolution" saw up to 17 million people participate in sustained, peaceful protests over several months11. This was an instance of preference revelation accelerating through an information cascade. Polling data from Gallup Korea vividly illustrates this trajectory: Park's approval rating plummeted to an unprecedented 4%, while support for her impeachment surged to 77% just prior to the Constitutional Court's ruling60.

The movement succeeded because it possessed both agility and capacity. Furthermore, the protests were translated into structural change because the institutional framework provided a clear off-ramp: the legislative and judicial impeachment processes. The movement did not seek to destroy the state apparatus; it sought to purge its corrupt elements through constitutional means, culminating in Park's removal in March 2017 and a shift in the balance of power60.

7.2 Sri Lanka: The Aragalaya Movement (2022)

In Sri Lanka, the catalyst was a severe macroeconomic shock. Decades of structural mismanagement, nepotism by the ruling Rajapaksa family, and an ill-conceived ban on chemical fertilizers culminated in 2022 with massive inflation, daily blackouts, and critical shortages of fuel and medicine63.

The economic disaster breached the survival threshold for the middle and lower classes, serving as the ultimate catalyst. The resulting movement, known as Aragalaya ("The Struggle"), transcended historical ethnic and class divides, uniting disparate demographics through shared economic trauma65. Between March and July 2022, protesters occupied the Presidential Secretariat and forced the resignation of the cabinet, the Prime Minister, and eventually President Gotabaya Rajapaksa, who fled the country63.

The Sri Lankan case demonstrates how absolute economic insecurity destroys a regime's performance legitimacy, rendering preference falsification untenable. The structural translation of this uprising occurred in October 2022 with the passage of the 21st Amendment to the Constitution. This amendment explicitly stripped the executive presidency of its concentrated powers and reestablished independent oversight commissions—a fundamental restructuring of political institutions directly resulting from the catalytic mobilization64.

8. Failed Catalysts and the Efficacy of Institutional Off-Ramps

Contrasting with the successes in South Korea and Sri Lanka are instances where highly salient events generated massive, acute mobilization but failed to achieve fundamental system change. Analyzing these failures is critical to understanding the limitations of catalytic events.

8.1 Chile: The "30 Pesos" Revolt and the Median Voter (2019-2023)

In October 2019, a minor increase in the Santiago metro fare (30 pesos) triggered the Estallido Social (social outburst) in Chile69. The fare hike was a symbolic catalyst that tapped into decades of accumulated grievance regarding neoliberal economic inequality, privatized pensions, and the structural legacies of the Pinochet-era constitution. The rallying cry became, "It is not 30 pesos, it is 30 years"70.

The moral shock of the state's initial violent repression of student protesters triggered massive information cascades, bringing millions to the streets6. In response, the political elite offered a profound institutional off-ramp: a plebiscite to draft a new constitution. In the 2020 entry referendum, an overwhelming majority voted in favor of replacing the constitution6.

However, the movement ultimately failed to enact structural change. In September 2022, the first proposed constitution—drafted by a left-leaning, progressive convention and featuring sweeping changes like plurinationalism and the abolition of the Senate—was rejected by a staggering 62% of the voters6. A subsequent conservative draft was similarly rejected in 202369.

Why did the catalyst fail to permanently alter the system? The Chilean case highlights the danger of misinterpreting preference revelation. The 2019 protests revealed a deep preference for practical social welfare improvements (better pensions, healthcare) and a rejection of elite impunity77. However, the activist vanguard misinterpreted this anti-elite anger as a profound preference change toward radical, decolonial leftist structuralism74. When the actual constitutional draft was presented, it included highly polarizing clauses (such as those regarding abortion access and indigenous sovereignty) that alienated the median voter, who desired stability and practical economic reform75. Once the emotional peak of the moral shock faded, the population normalized, prioritizing security over uncertain radical change.

8.2 France's Gilets Jaunes and Bureaucratic Absorption (2018-2019)

If state violence accelerates mobilization, institutional absorption is the most effective mechanism for defusing it. In late 2018, France experienced the Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests) movement, triggered by a planned increase in fuel taxes—a catalyst that resonated with deep economic insecurity and a perception of President Emmanuel Macron as an elitist "president of the rich"79.

The protests were highly decentralized, occasionally violent, and demanded systemic changes, including the implementation of citizen-initiated referendums79. In response, rather than relying solely on police repression, the Macron administration constructed a massive institutional off-ramp: the Grand Débat National (Great National Debate)79.

By organizing thousands of local town halls and online portals for citizens to voice their grievances, the state effectively absorbed the movement's momentum. The debate forced a decentralized, angry movement to articulate specific policy demands within a structured bureaucratic framework79. This strategy successfully fractured the movement: moderates engaged with the debate, satisfied that they were participating in the political process, while radicals who continued to riot were increasingly isolated and lost broader public support7. By turning a systemic crisis into a bureaucratic exercise, the state prevented a localized economic grievance from maturing into a persistent revolutionary preference.

8.3 The Paradox of Agility and Capacity

Sociologist Zeynep Tufekci’s analysis of networked protests highlights why modern movements frequently fail to capitalize on catalytic events. Digital technologies grant modern movements unprecedented agility—the ability to mobilize millions globally overnight based on a viral catalyst8. However, this agility masks a severe lack of organizational capacity.

Unlike historical movements (e.g., the Civil Rights Movement) that spent years building institutional infrastructure, modern networked protests assemble spontaneously without cohesive leadership. Consequently, they lack the structural mechanisms required to negotiate complex policy transitions, enforce tactical discipline, or sustain political pressure when the initial affective shock fades8. They can signal massive grievance, but they lack the capacity to govern the aftermath.

9. Duration Analysis: The Decay of Moral Shocks

A critical analytical task is distinguishing a transient, one-week opinion spike from a persistent systemic change lasting years. The empirical evidence across sociology and event studies strongly indicates that human cognitive and affective systems cannot sustain acute states of moral shock indefinitely.

In the immediate aftermath of a catalyst, affective polarization is exceptionally high. The visceral anger generated by events like the George Floyd murder bypasses rational calculation, resulting in an opinion spike28. During this limited window, polling data captures highly volatile, radicalized preferences.

However, unless this affective energy is rapidly institutionalized (as seen in the South Korean impeachment process), it invariably decays.

Polling Dynamics: Public Confidence in Police (US)

The trajectory of public opinion regarding US law enforcement following the 2020 protests perfectly illustrates the decay of an acute moral shock into historical normalization.

Data sourced from Gallup Historical Trends85.

As demonstrated by the data, the 2020 catalyst generated a massive, acute revelation of grievance. However, it did not induce a persistent preference change for revolutionary alternatives (e.g., abolishing the police). By late 2023, 58% of Americans felt the criminal justice system was not tough enough on crime, representing a sharp reversal from 2020 and a return to historical normative demands for social control88. The median citizen's preference for physical safety and economic predictability consistently supersedes the desire for ideological restructuring. Therefore, what initially appears to be a massive shift in revolutionary preference is frequently just a temporary expansion of the Overton window, followed by a rapid contraction once the costs of sustained instability are internalized by the moderate majority7.

10. Conclusion and Confidence Levels

The independent investigation into the role of catalytic events in transforming political grievances yields a nuanced, multi-dimensional model of collective behavior. Catalysts do not manufacture revolutionary preference in a historical vacuum. Instead, they act as informational signals and moral shocks that trigger preference revelation and information cascades in societies primed by structural grievances, economic insecurity, and low institutional trust.

10.1 Summary of the Catalyst Model

1. Preconditions: Accumulated grievance, elite division, and pluralistic ignorance create latent systemic vulnerability.
2. The Catalyst: A highly salient, unambiguous event (e.g., severe economic shock, state violence) provides a moral shock that captures collective attention.
3. Threshold Activation: The catalyst drastically lowers the risk threshold for early adopters, initiating an information cascade.
4. Preference Revelation: The masses realize their private anti-regime preferences are widely shared, leading to the collapse of preference falsification.
5. Institutional Translation vs. Decay: If the movement possesses organizational capacity and the state provides an institutional avenue (e.g., impeachment, constitutional amendment), structural change occurs. If the movement relies solely on digital agility, or if the state implements effective bureaucratic absorption (e.g., national debates), the movement decays, and public opinion normalizes.

10.2 Confidence Levels

Based on the synthesis of empirical data, political psychology, and comparative sociology, the following analytical confidence levels are assigned:

• High Confidence: Catalytic events function primarily through preference revelation rather than genuine preference change. Longitudinal polling and experimental data strongly confirm that opinion spikes following moral shocks are temporary and normalize without rapid institutionalization.
• High Confidence: Networked digital movements exhibit unprecedented agility but severe capacity deficits, making them highly effective at destabilizing governments but highly ineffective at governing the subsequent structural transitions.
• Moderate to High Confidence: State violence against non-violent protesters generates favorable media framing and broadens movement support (Agenda Seeding), whereas protester-initiated violence triggers rapid conservative backlash, alienates the median voter, and shifts the agenda toward social control.
• Moderate Confidence: Institutional off-ramps (e.g., referendums, national debates) are highly effective at defusing revolutionary preference by fracturing the coalition between moderates and radicals, though their success remains dependent on the credibility of the state executing them.

Understanding why accumulated pressure remains latent until a specific event changes its political meaning requires moving beyond linear models of cause and effect. A catalyst is merely the spark; the structural preconditions are the kindling, and the psychological mechanisms of preference revelation provide the oxygen. Without the simultaneous presence of all three, the fire of systemic change will inevitably burn out.

Works cited

1. (PDF) Issueless Riots - ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/249663811_Issueless_Riots
2. Effective Policing?: Implementation In Theory And Practice [PDF], https://vdoc.pub/documents/effective-policing-implementation-in-theory-and-practice-2584uebu30fg
3. Now out of Never: The Element of Surprise in the East European, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/world-politics/article/now-out-of-never-the-element-of-surprise-in-the-east-european-revolution-of-1989/B947420222BF565D0B2D93099E704BF2
4. Social Media and the Decision to Participate in Political Protest, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/264340811_Social_Media_and_the_Decision_to_Participate_in_Political_Protest_Observations_From_Tahrir_Square
5. (PDF) Contingency of Structures: Triggers and the Social Geography, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/398116729_Contingency_of_Structures_Triggers_and_the_Social_Geography_of_Revolutionary_Episodes_in_Iran_2017-2022
6. Making Sense of the Failed Constitutional Process in Chile, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/391237098_The_'Withdrawn_Citizen'_Making_Sense_of_the_Failed_Constitutional_Process_in_Chile
7. The Lifecycle of Protests in the Digital Age - CREST, https://crest.science/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/2026-01.pdf
8. twitter-and-tear-gas-by-zeynep-tufekci.pdf, https://www.twitterandteargas.org/downloads/twitter-and-tear-gas-by-zeynep-tufekci.pdf
9. Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest, https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/32714239-twitter-and-tear-gas
10. NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES THE POLITICAL ECONOMICS, https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w27949/w27949.pdf
11. The candlelight protests in South Korea: a dynamics of contention, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/359394170_The_candlelight_protests_in_South_Korea_a_dynamics_of_contention_approach
12. Experiments about Institutions, https://www.ifo.de/DocDL/cesifo1_wp10833.pdf
13. What Do People Really Want?: Timur Kuran's Private Truths, Public, https://www.independent.org/tir/1996-97-winter/what-do-people-really-want/
14. Preference falsification - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preference_falsification
15. NEW AUTHORITARIAN PRACTICES IN THE MIDDLE EAST AND, https://dokumen.pub/download/new-authoritarian-practices-in-the-middle-east-and-north-africa-9781474489430.html
16. Timur Kuran - Private Truths, Public Lies | PDF - Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/606762439/Timur-Kuran-Private-Truths-Public-Lies-the-Social-Consequences-of-Preference-Falsification-Harvard-University-Press-1997
17. #MeToo as a Revolutionary Cascade - Chicago Unbound, https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1651&context=uclf
18. Now out of never: The Element of Surprise in the East European, https://utopiayouarestandinginit.com/2014/11/09/now-out-of-never-the-element-of-surprise-in-the-east-european-revolution-of-1989-article-summary/
19. Application of Cascade Theory to Online Systems, https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1199&context=mjlst
20. Threshold Models of Collective Behavior - Mark Granovetter, https://fbaum.unc.edu/teaching/articles/Granovetter_AJS_1978.pdf
21. Moral Content Diminishes Preference Falsification - ResearchGate, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/382098800_Moral_Content_Diminishes_Preference_Falsification
22. The Element of Surprise in the East European Revolution of 1989, https://pdodds.w3.uvm.edu/research/papers/others/1991/kuran1991a.pdf
23. Collective Behavior Research Essay | UsefulResearchPapers.com, https://usefulresearchpapers.com/collective-behavior-research-essay/
24. Threshold Models of Diversity: Chinese Restaurants, Residential, https://pdodds.w3.uvm.edu/research/papers/others/1988/granovetter1988a.pdf
25. Exact Solution of Granovetter's Threshold Model for a Finite Population, https://arxiv.org/html/2606.25921v1
26. [PDF] Threshold Models of Collective Behavior - Semantic Scholar, https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Threshold-Models-of-Collective-Behavior-Granovetter/92b6aeb4e4f8e0c170f33ba274ce1830db9c9496
27. Threshold models of collective behavior - IFISC, https://ifisc.uib-csic.es/users/maxi/CollectPhenSocDyn/lectures/Thresholds2018.pdf
28. Violent Protest, Contentious Politics, and the Neoliberal State, https://dokumen.pub/violent-protest-contentious-politics-and-the-neoliberal-state-9781138247307-9781409418764.html
29. exploring motivating factors of Bangladesh's July 2024 uprising, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/400731539_From_revolt_to_revolution_exploring_motivating_factors_of_Bangladesh's_July_2024_uprising
30. The Diffusion of Revolution: '1848' in Europe and Latin America, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/international-organization/article/diffusion-of-revolution-1848-in-europe-and-latin-america/6E898D1CA79713F2D4C88B0CB14AA7C4
31. Revolution and Reaction: The Diffusion of Authoritarianism in Latin, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332492141_Revolution_and_Reaction_The_Diffusion_of_Authoritarianism_in_Latin_America
32. Bounded Rationality and Policy Diffusion: Social Sector Reform in, https://dokumen.pub/bounded-rationality-and-policy-diffusion-social-sector-reform-in-latin-america-course-booknbsped-9781400828067.html
33. Weyland 2013 Making Waves Democratic Contention in Europe and, https://www.scribd.com/document/834556527/Weyland-2013-Making-Waves-Democratic-Contention-in-Europe-and-Latin-America-since-the-Revolutions-of-1848
34. MeToo as a Revolutionary Cascade, https://legal-forum.uchicago.edu/print-archive/metoo-revolutionary-cascade
35. Why the Surprising Similarities with the Revolutionary Wave of 1848, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/arab-spring-why-the-surprising-similarities-with-the-revolutionary-wave-of-1848/CA943D4084222666CAFDD03925E22E71
36. RATIONALITY AND INSTITUTIONS - Lirias, https://lirias.kuleuven.be/retrieve/19bb19a1-5e77-4885-8d1f-a468aed059ed
37. Altruism and Efficiency* Serge-Christophe Kolm, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdfplus/10.1086/292509
38. Does Counterinsurgent Success Match Social Support? Evidence, https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/694915
39. Experimental Evidence from Hong Kong's Democracy Movement, http://www.davidecantoni.net/pdfs/hk_protest_experiment_20170523.pdf
40. Public Goods, Expressive Values, and Protest Participation, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/384911455_Public_Goods_Expressive_Values_and_Protest_Participation_Evidence_From_a_Conjoint_Experiment_in_Hong_Kong
41. The Diffusion of Prosocial and Antisocial Behaviors - DJ Thornton, https://djthornton.org/assets/pdf/Strategic_Diffusion_Dec_2025.pdf
42. The Political Economics of Non-democracy, https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/10.1257/jel.20221494
43. Gauging Preference for Democracy in Absence of Free Speech, https://ideas.repec.org/p/bro/econwp/2023-005.html
44. Agenda Seeding: How 1960s Black Protests Moved Elites, Public, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/341574928_Agenda_Seeding_How_1960s_Black_Protests_Moved_Elites_Public_Opinion_and_Voting
45. Agenda Seeding: How 1960s Black Protests Moved Elites, Public, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/agenda-seeding-how-1960s-black-protests-moved-elites-public-opinion-and-voting/136610C8C040C3D92F041BB2EFC3034C
46. Agenda Seeding: How 1960s Black Protests Moved Elites, Public, http://www.omarwasow.com/APSR_protests_appendix_3_1.pdf
47. What the 1960s protests can teach us about fighting racism today, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/what-1960s-civil-rights-protests-teach-fighting-racism-today
48. How COVID-19 and Racial Justice Protests Influenced Social, https://ecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1194&context=socialwork_facpubs
49. The California Act to Save [Black] Lives? Race, Policing, and the, https://www.californialawreview.org/print/the-california-act-to-save-black-lives-race-policing-and-the-interest-convergence-dilemma-in-the-state-of-california
50. Movement for Black Lives at Work? Racial Justice Spillover, Labor, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00380253.2024.2357549
51. Actualizing Justice: Private Prosecution Regimes for Modern Social, https://jlsp.law.columbia.edu/files/2023/09/4-Ferguson.pdf
52. Insights From the George Floyd Rebellion - U.C.L.A. Law Review, https://www.uclalawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/securepdfs/2022/07/Pow-%E2%80%93-69%E2%80%931.pdf
53. Late Adoption and Collective Action: Social Media Expansion and, https://annalicasanueva.com/docs/Black-Lives-Matter-and-COVID-19.pdf
54. F&E Edition - PH Vorarlberg, https://www.ph-vorarlberg.ac.at/fileadmin/user_upload/RED_SOZ/PDFs/F_E_27/FE27.pdf
55. Did the Murder of George Floyd Damage Public Perceptions of, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/388426510_Did_the_Murder_of_George_Floyd_Damage_Public_Perceptions_of_Police_and_Law_in_the_United_States
56. Visions Of Political Violence 0367261030, 9780367261030, https://dokumen.pub/visions-of-political-violence-0367261030-9780367261030-0367261014-9780367261016.html
57. Racial Protest, Violence, and Backlash - Niskanen Center, https://www.niskanencenter.org/racial-protest-violence-and-backlash/
58. South Korea's Kind of Populism - Democratic Erosion Consortium, https://democratic-erosion.org/2019/12/03/south-koreas-kind-of-populism/
59. Full article: Shifting from top-down to bottom-up nationalism, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/10304312.2024.2414788
60. South Korea in 2017: Presidential Impeachment and Security Volatility, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323364266_South_Korea_in_2017_Presidential_Impeachment_and_Security_Volatility
61. What Is Putinism? - AWS, https://fsi-live.s3.us-west-1.amazonaws.com/s3fs-public/south_korea_after_impeachment.pdf
62. Park Geun-hye / approval rating - NamuWiki, https://en.namu.wiki/w/%EB%B0%95%EA%B7%BC%ED%98%9C/%EC%A7%80%EC%A7%80%EC%9C%A8
63. 2022 Sri Lankan protests - Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Sri_Lankan_protests
64. Sri Lanka's Reform Drive: Response to Economic and Political Crisis, https://www.isas.nus.edu.sg/papers/sri-lankas-reform-drive-response-to-economic-and-political-crisis/
65. The Aragalaya Protest Movement and the Struggle for Political, https://carnegieendowment.org/research/2025/08/sri-lanka-aragalaya-protest-movement-oust-wickremesinghe-rajapaksa
66. DEMOCRATIC SOCIALIST REPUBLIC OF SRI LANKA - EUR-Lex, https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52023SC0366
67. Sri Lanka: Freedom in the World 2023 Country Report, https://freedomhouse.org/country/sri-lanka/freedom-world/2023
68. Rule of Law, Institutions and Constitutional Reforms, https://www.kas.de/documents/278334/0/POLITICS+OF+POST-UPRISING+REFORM.pdf/5ca1d4e1-8424-a0a2-eca9-5c8bbf7b6b66?version=1.0&t=1786414827394
69. (PDF) Chile's Transformation Amidst Crisis: The Theseus Paradox, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/397420473_Chile's_Transformation_Amidst_Crisis_The_Theseus_Paradox
70. From the Dance of Those Left Out to a New Constitution, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/353311794_From_the_Dance_of_Those_Left_Out_to_a_New_Constitution_Channeling_the_Chilean_Social_Unrest
71. References - The Age of Discontent, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/age-of-discontent/references/32275642CE73880814CC62F363249239
72. INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE YOUTH ACTIVISMS LIBRO DE, https://blogs.uned.es/youthactivisms/wp-content/uploads/sites/349/2025/06/Libro-de-Actas-publicacion.pdf
73. ¿Voto versus Protesta? La movilización como mecanismo de, https://journals.openedition.org/polis/21233?lang=en
74. Chile's Constituent Processes: A Fault Line of Decolonial, https://cjil.uchicago.edu/online-archive/chiles-constituent-processes-fault-line-decolonial-constitutionalism
75. In Pinochet's Shadows: The Incidence of Authoritarian/Democratic, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/latin-american-politics-and-society/article/in-pinochets-shadows-the-incidence-of-authoritariandemocratic-values-on-the-vote-choice-in-the-2022-constitutional-plebiscite-in-chile/446F7AAEA987A9DD427572FBD424A163
76. Abortion rights and the 2023 constitution-making process in Chile, https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:effbb0c5-4a5a-43b5-9485-82d82df40a0f/files/r2801pj133
77. Educación Ciudadana 4° Medio: Contenidos Clave | PDF - Scribd, https://es.scribd.com/document/533907322/Texto-estudiante-4-medio-Educacion-Ciudadana
78. The Impact of Socio-Political Cleavages on Constitutional, https://www.cogitatiopress.com/politicsandgovernance/article/download/8804/4291
79. Macron, the Yellow Vests and the National Debate, https://www.swp-berlin.org/10.18449/2019C17/
80. Bottom-up democracy, blame and a republican monarch among the, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09639489.2022.2128732
81. Multi-option Technical Facilitation of Public Debate, https://www.laetusinpraesens.org/docs10s/pubdeb.php
82. 9781836690061 - DOKUMEN.PUB, https://dokumen.pub/9781836690061.html
83. How to Evaluate Applications for Funding for Digital Governance, https://medium.com/@abutuzova/how-to-evaluate-applications-for-funding-for-digital-governance-infrastructure-88e28418c29
84. Social Movements in the Age of Digital Activism (www.kiu.ac.ug) | PDF, https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/social-movements-in-the-age-of-digital-activism-www-kiu-ac-ug/283330257
85. Building and Measuring Community Trust in Policing, https://assets.montgomerycountymd.gov/files/Dillard.pdf
86. The Public's Confidence in the Police Might Be Better Than You Think, https://www.dolanconsultinggroup.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/New-Article_Public-Confidence_October-31_PDF.pdf
87. Do Community Views of Local Police Agencies Change During, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/385274713_Do_Community_Views_of_Local_Police_Agencies_Change_During_Crises_of_Legitimacy_Results_of_a_Multi-wave_Random_Sample_Community_Survey_in_a_Large_Suburban_Jurisdiction
88. Americans More Critical of U.S. Criminal Justice System - Gallup News, https://news.gallup.com/poll/544439/americans-critical-criminal-justice-system.aspx
89. Democrats' Confidence in U.S. Institutions Sinks to New Low, https://news.gallup.com/poll/692633/democrats-confidence-institutions-sinks-new-low.aspx