Autocratic regime type Geddes (2004: 11-13) claims that there are three types of autocratic regimes: military, personal and single-party. Each type has specific interests that define how they respond to violent uprisings. In military regimes a group of officers decides who will rule and exercise some influence on the policy. Most professional soldiers place a higher value on the survival of the military itself than in anything else. There main interest is stability and their worst threat is civil war (Geddes, 2004: 11-13). Consequently, the most important concern for many officers deciding whether to join a coup conspiracy is their assessment of how many other officers will join (Geddes, 2004: 13). Military regimes tend to split when challenged, because military regimes are more likely to negotiate their own withdrawal and to democratize (Geddes, 2004: 6). Personal regimes are different from both military and single-party regimes, because on individual dominates the military, state apparatus and the ruling party. Personalist regimes rarely leave office voluntarily and more often end in popular uprising, revolution, invasion or assassination (Geddes, 2004:6). When the status quo of a personal regime becomes challenges a transition from one personal regime to another is more likely than a democratization process (Geddes, 2004: 23-24). In single-party regimes, access to political office and control over policy are dominated by one party, though other parties may legally exist