Dictatorial regimes are the most unstable. 
Let’s start with Brazil. After the impeachment neighboring countries Venezuela and Ecuador, in protest, withdrew their ambassadors from Brazilian capital. And there is an interesting argument. In a statement, the Venezuelan foreign Ministry said that the government of the Bolivarian Republic described the incident in a neighboring country as a “parliamentary coup” and expressed “its solidarity with President Dilma Rousseff and millions of women and men who have chosen by direct and secret ballot”. That is, the logic is as follows: one who is elected by all the people, can not be rejected by some public body like a Parliament.
In this simple phrase is actually a conflict between different models of democracy. More precisely — between the plebiscite and the liberal democracies.
If to speak very roughly and simply, plebiscitary democracy assumes that the people choose the government, primarily the President, and he does whatever he wants, not really limiting ourselves as some kind of deterrent, balances or procedures. Bright representative of this type of “democracy” was the head of Venezuela Hugo Chavez is now Alexander Lukashenko.
As liberal democracy comes from the fact that any elected government must act strictly within the framework of the Constitution, laws, and procedures. Attempts to go beyond the law must be punished by the removal of a politician from power. What happened in Brazil.
The problem, however, that if the President can do whatever he wants, it soon becomes clear that even the plebiscitary model of democracy he’s getting close. And after some time he rejects democracy at all.
Belarus survived the conflict in 1994-1996. Then Lukashenka complained that the Supreme Council and the constitutional court prevented him to make the Belarusian people happy. The majority of the population supported the President. Well, then the real will of the people, the head of Belarus is not very interested in.
And what this means, we can see on the example of Uzbekistan. The only and the permanent President Islam Karimov could not die like a normal person. After all, his entourage feared that the death of the dictator did not cause instability in the country. Therefore, the concealed to the latest information about his condition.
Something similar happened in Venezuela during the death of Hugo Chavez. Therefore, there are such curiosities, for example, when Vladimir Putin, congratulating Uzbekistan with the Independence Day and wished Islam Karimov good health, although unofficially it was known that on the artificial life support, that is, in fact, barely alive.
That’s what led the notorious stability. It turns out that the personalized authoritarian regimes, regimes of personal power is the most unstable. Because in regimes of this type (as in Uzbekistan and Belarus) there is no mechanism for the transfer of power even within the ruling team, not to mention the fact that she could go to the opposition. The problem is that the dictators in life are rarely appointed successors. After all, the fear that the successor has not accelerated their departure from power or from life.
The result is a power vacuum. And the shift of power to new leadership inevitably turns into a political crisis that is often solved by force. For example, after Stalin’s death, Nikita Khrushchev cleared a path to power through the arrest and shooting a strong opponentof Lavrenty Beria.
The fact is that, in a personalized mode the entire system of government institutions and mechanisms, cut and sewn by one person, in his image and likeness, and closed it. It is able to function only by constant and active pulses emanating from him, and at the same time brutal suppression of all other political factors both within the system and outside it. And the deposition of authoritarian ruler creates a strong crisis.
The situation in the Belarusian example is well described by the Russian scientist Dmitry Oreshkin:
“If you remove the block under the name “Lukashenko”, the system will stop like a clock without the batteries. Alternative sources of supply model does not provide. They carefully seek out and destroy. Their existence is contrary to the very sense of justice Lukashenko. There can be no alternatives, if there is such a wonderful Alexander G…. Not so terrible a tyrant as it is
