ABSTRACT
A greater proportion of the arguments made by political actors, which favor a particular course of action to be taken in response to multiparty democratization, are those in which a reference point is used by speakers. Conducting an individual-level analysis allows the study to clearly demonstrate that more than one type of decision rule was utilized by political actors in Rwanda and Burundi during the period of democratic transition, this contrary to arguments that rely – either directly or indirectly – on the assumptions of rational choice. When a speaker advocates preference for a risk-seeking policy course – total genocide in the case – and uses the former status quo ("FSQ") as his or her reference point, he or she is considered to behaving in a risk-acceptant manner. Interestingly, the results also indicate that speakers who preferred a LR policy course were more inclined to use the FSQ as their reference point than speakers who preferred a higher risk policy.
