Strategic acquiescence: revolutionary survival versus international transformation

All revolutionaries seek to remake their domestic orders, but only some pursue transformative change beyond the state. Those revolutionaries that are transformative at home and abroad have challenged imperialism (Nicaragua 1927), exported revolution (Iran 1979) and upset international alliances (Cambodia 1975). However, there is another category of revolutionaries who want to transform international order(s), but refrain from doing so. For these revolutionaries, survival of the revolution limits their ability to effect international change. I call this disjunct between revolutionary aspirations and actions “strategic acquiescence.” Using a novel dataset of revolutionary pragmatism, this article conceptualizes, maps and typologizes the phenomenon of strategic acquiescence in the period between 1900 and 2020. Doing so not only shows the different ways in which revolutionaries have navigated the trade-off between survival and transformation, but also widens our understanding of the difficulties facing those seeking to effect radical change in world politics.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
European Journal of International Relations
Published
2026-04-30
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/13540661261438669
Primary Topic
Political Conflict and Governance
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Strategic acquiescence: revolutionary survival versus international transformation

Catherine Hirst
European Journal of International Relations
Political Conflict and Governance
article

Strategic acquiescence: revolutionary survival versus international transformation

Catherine Hirst
article en

Abstract

All revolutionaries seek to remake their domestic orders, but only some pursue transformative change beyond the state. Those revolutionaries that are transformative at home and abroad have challenged imperialism (Nicaragua 1927), exported revolution (Iran 1979) and upset international alliances (Cambodia 1975). However, there is another category of revolutionaries who want to transform international order(s), but refrain from doing so. For these revolutionaries, survival of the revolution limits their ability to effect international change. I call this disjunct between revolutionary aspirations and actions “strategic acquiescence.” Using a novel dataset of revolutionary pragmatism, this article conceptualizes, maps and typologizes the phenomenon of strategic acquiescence in the period between 1900 and 2020. Doing so not only shows the different ways in which revolutionaries have navigated the trade-off between survival and transformation, but also widens our understanding of the difficulties facing those seeking to effect radical change in world politics.

European Journal of International Relations
Australian National University (AU)
Australian National University
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Political Conflict and Governance
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.