After this was done, a governing entity would then "select" in an evolutionary sense which actors they wanted to live with (using cooptation, representation and channeling) and they would "select out" those actors that they did not want to live with (using repression/human rights violation). After a while, we intuited that citizens would get the message and they would put forward ideas (e.g., democratic inclusion) and tactics (e.g., non-violence) which they felt that the government would like (i.e., that would be more likely to result in cooptation than coercion and violence). Hubris and not keeping up with new sentiments, however leads governments to problems.
As a result, we suggest that in order to understand repression you have to understand socio-political control as well as the co-evolutionary adaptation of challengers/citizens to governments and vice versa.
For the paper, we stripped away the first part (focusing on the coercive-wielding phase) but I always liked the earlier (coercive generating phase) being considered at the same time.