Heresthetics is a term coined by Riker to refer to the stratagems used by politicians to manipulate the structure of a decision-making situation. The object of such manipulation is to force one's opponents into a choice of alternatives such that, whichever alternative is chosen, the opponents will lose. The main argument of this article is that military coups and regimes are largely the outcomes of successful heresthetical maneuvers. In this article my argument is applied to the emergence of the Brazilian military regime of 1964. But the argument should apply more widely. At the very least, this preliminary exercise should stimulate more research on the strategic maneuvers that engender military regimes and other forms of political change. By investigating the relationship between heresthetics and regime change this article also shows how social choice theory and game theory can be used to complement and enrich current explanations of political change.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Benevides, M. (1981). A UDN e o Udenismo. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra.
2.
Bueno de Mesquita, B. (1981). The war trap. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
3.
Bueno de Mesquita, B. (1985). The war trap revisited: A revised expected utility model. American Political Science Review, 79, 156-177.
4.
Campello de Souza, M. (1976). Estado e Partidos Políticos no Brasil. São Paulo: Alfa-Ômega.
5.
Cardoso, F. (1973). Associated-dependent development: Theoretical and practical implications. In A. Stepan (Ed.), Authoritarian Brazil (pp. 142-176). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
6.
Chilcote, R. H. (1974) The Brazilian communist party. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
Cohen, Y. (1987). Democracy from above: The political origins of military dictatorship in Brazil. World Politics, 40, 30-54.
8.
Cohen, Y. (1989). The manipulation of consent: The state and working-class consciousness in Brazil. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
9.
Collier, D. (Ed.). (1979). The new authoritarianism in Latin America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
dos Santos, W. G. (1978). Ordem Burguesa e Liberalismo Político. São Paulo: Duas Cidades.
11.
dos Santos, W. G. (1979). The calculus of conflict: Impasse in Brazilian politics and the crisis of 1964. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, CA.
12.
Dreifus, R. A. (1981). 1964: A Conquista do Estado. Petropolis: Vozes.
13.
Elster, J. (1978). Logic and society. New York: Wiley.
14.
Elster, J. (1979). Ulysses and the sirens. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Elster, J. (1983). Explaining technical change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
16.
Elster, J. (1985). Making sense of Marx. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Erickson, K. P. (1977). The Brazilian corporative state and working-class politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
18.
Erickson, K. P. , & Peppe, P. V. (1976). Dependent capitalist development, U.S. foreign policy, and repression of the working class in Chile and Brazil. Latin American Perspectives, 3, 19-44.
19.
Evans, P. (1979). Dependent development: The alliance of multinational, state, and local capital in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
20.
Figueiredo, A.M.C. (1987). Political coalitions in Brazil, 1961-1964: Alternatives to the political crisis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago, IL.
21.
Fitch, J. S. (1977). The military coup d'etat as a political process: Ecuador, 1948-1966. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
22.
Furtado, C. (1965). Political obstacles to the economic development of Brazil. In C. Veliz (Ed.), Obstacles to change in Latin America. London: Oxford University Press.
23.
Harding, T. F. (1973). The political history of organized labor in Brazil. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Stanford University, CA.
24.
Hirschman, A. O. (1979). The turn to authoritarianism in Latin America and the search for its economic determinants. In D. Collier (Ed.), The new authoritarianism in Latin America (pp. 61-98). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
Hirschman, A. O. (1986). Rival views of market society. New York: Viking.
26.
Horowitz, I. L. , & Trimberger, E. K. (1976). State power and military nationalism in Latin America. Comparative Politics, 8, 223-244.
27.
Kaufman, R. (1979) Industrial change and authoritarian rule in Latin America: A concrete review of the bureaucratic-authoritarian model. In D. Collier (Ed.), The new authoritarianism in Latin America (pp. 165-253). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
28.
Kennedy, G. (1974). The military in the Third World. New York: Scribner's.
29.
Lamounier, B. (1978). Formação de um Pensamento Político Autoritário na Primeira República. In B. Fausto (Ed.), O Brasil Republicano (Vol. 2, pp. 343-374). Rio de Janeiro: Difel.
30.
Luttwack, E. (1969). Coup d'etat: A practical handbook. New York: Knopf.
31.
McDonough, P.J. (1981). Power and ideology in Brazil. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
32.
Nordlinger, E. A. (1977). Soldiers in politics: Military coups and governments. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
33.
O'Donnell, G. A. (1973). Modernization and bureaucratic-authoritarianism: Studies in South American politics. Berkeley: Institute of International Studies, University of California.
34.
O'Donnell, G. A. (1977). Corporatism and the question of the state. In J. Malloy (Ed.), Authoritarianism and corporatism in Latin America (pp. 47-88). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
35.
O'Donnell, G. A. (1978). Reflections on the pattern of change in the bureaucratic-authoritarian state. Latin American Research Review, 13, 3-38.
36.
O'Donnell, G. A. (1979). Tensions in the bureaucratic-authoritarian state and the question of democracy. In D. Collier (Ed.), The new authoritarianism in Latin America (pp. 285-318). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
Ordeshook, P. C. (1986). Game theory and political theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
38.
Przeworski, A. (1985). Capitalism and social democracy. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
39.
Przeworski, A. (1986). Some problems in the study of the transition to democracy. In G. O'Donnell, P. Schmitter, & L. Whitehead (Eds.), Transitions from authoritarian rule: Comparative perspectives. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
40.
Przeworski, A. , & Sprague, J. (1988). Paper stones: A history of electoral socialism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
41.
Riker, W. H. (1983). Political theory and the art of heresthetics. In A. W. Finifter (Ed.), Political science: The state of the discipline (pp. 47-68). Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
42.
Riker, W. H. (1986). The art of political manipulation. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
43.
Schwartzman, S. (1977). Back to Weber: Corporatism and patrimonialism in the seventies. In J. M. Malloy (Ed.), Authoritarianism and corporatism in Latin America (pp. 89-108). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
44.
Schwartzman, S. (1982). Bases do Autoritarismo Brasileiro. Rio De Janeiro: Campus.
45.
Serra, J. (1979). Three mistaken theses regarding the connection between industrialization and authoritarian regimes. In D. Collier (Ed.), The new authoritarianism in Latin America (pp. 99-164). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
46.
Skidmore, T. E. (1967). Politics in Brazil. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
47.
Stepan, A. (1971). The military in politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
48.
Stepan, A. (1978). Political leadership and regime breakdown: Brazil. In J. J. Linz & A. Stepan (Eds.), The breakdown of democratic regimes: Latin America (pp. 110-137). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
