The approach that has been employed in the foregoing analysis of Guyana and Trinidad and Tobago is similar to what Samuel P. Huntington (1971: 319–21) calls the “crisis” model of political change. It emphasizes the choices made by a political leadership in the quest to gain and maintain control of the state. It subscribes to the notion, argued by Rustow (1970: 337–63), that the conditions for conquest of power are different from those necessary to ensure political tenure.

Political leaders in LDCs can come to power by directly representing the interests of powerful and strategic actors who are dissatisfied with the existing state of affairs and/or by making alliances with them. In this manner, they can assure themselves of access to resources for use against the political incumbents. These resources vary and can include sheer numbers, financial power, economic control, coercive resources, propaganda, and the like. They can be located in both the domestic and international environments.

To remain in power, the incumbent regime must seek to accommodate dissident actors, either by giving them direct control of political decision-making or by formulating policy to meet their demands, or it must seek to neutralize them. The object of neutralization is to insulate the political, social, and economic systems from the effects of negative and destabilizing actions or to insulate the regime itself from the consequences of such actions.

International actors

International actors can pose the most formidable threat to the stability of regimes in LDCs.