The more fear a government inflicts on its citizen, the greater risks of civil disorder it carries.

Firstly, I would like to attack the claim that only authoritarian states use fear as a tool. Not one government since written history did not use fear as a tool to control its people. There are many ways of using fear. One of the most common ways is through polices, military, prisons, and prosecutions. Riot police is a body created to suppress civil disturbance, and that is a way to inflict fear on those who plan to protest. In a constitutional country, the government is often afraid of its own people more than reverse. These Member of Parliaments or Senators have to earn the heart of people and respect the constitution, or else face the possibilities of being kicked out the next election or prosecution before court. In an absolute state, there is no such constitution to adhere to. When having absolute power, including the power over the tool called fear, it often asserts too much fear on its citizens and this directly increases the chances of civil disorder in the long run. Firstly, human are selfish and preservative. If the government has the absolute power in a state, including the military and the supremacy to define morality and imposing it on its citizens, the selfishness and preservative instinct between the government and the people instantly comes into conflict. As the sovereign is another human being, he is extremely selfish and preservative. Therefore, when he holds complete power, he will try to obtain things for his own good with that power. Eventually, what he asks for or commands may danger his subjects, such as waging nuclear war, heavy labour. .. As it is left for the civilians to judge if their lives are in danger and to preserve themselves, his state is no more than a bunch of people in their own constant fear of violent death and state of war, and they will be ready to kill or harm others, or even the sovereign, for their own preservation. To repress this and stay in power, the government has to increase their use of fear, such as presence of polices and military. It feeds into a vicious cycle. Violence increases and the people's fear of their own government increases, actively increasing their state of war with their own government, being more ready to kill or harm for their own preservation. In a constitutional state, excessive use of riot polices during conventions, suppressive and authoritarian laws are also considered a factor of fear and feed directly to the mentioned vicious cycle. The demand of the people in an authoritarian state for liberalization rises as more fear is inflicted and more suppressive a state becomes. This has been the case throughout history; therefore I feel no need to debate this. China during the Cultural Revolution experienced civil chaos. The Red Guards, or a youth group created by the government, used fear to achieve its own "revolutionary" beliefs. "Ideological cleansing began with attacks by young Red Guards on so-called "intellectuals" to remove "bourgeois" influences. Millions were forced into manual labour, and tens of thousands were executed. The result was massive civil unrest, and the army was sent in to control student disorder. " BBC NEWS As you brought up the case for Syria protest, to my understanding of the timeline, the first truly serious unrest that marks the escalation of tension took place on March 18th. Helicopter and water cannons were used to "disperse" protesters. The next days the government began opening fire into protesters, more tear gas were used. In the very same timeline we see the progressive escalation of three things. This collective escalation is solid proof of my resolution: More violence used to disperse protesters More protesters burst to the street More public infrastructure was built More violence. .. Civil unrest did not fall as more violence is used in the Syria protest, it escalated. I look forward to your argument. Timeline . http://topics.nytimes.com... BBC News - Cultural Revolution . http://news.bbc.co.uk... My source is entirely credible without conflict of interest.