For decades analysts of contentious politics have been utilizing a variety of theoretical models to explain the origin, development, and outcomes of popular mobilizations in different parts of the world. Many of these studies employ structural, critical mass, cultural approaches, and to an increasing degree the political process model to study the emergence of popular contention. The latter approach offers a more general tool for analyzing contentious collective actions by focusing on three fundamental factors: the political opportunity/threat structure (regime openness/closeness), available organizational and mobilizing resources, and framing processes. Yet this approach has been used predominantly to explore popular protest in democratic societies. My comparative research contributes to the scholarly conversation on social movements by emphasizing the importance of political process approaches and resource mobilization for explaining the eruption or absence of collective mobilization in four non-democratic contexts. Recently protesters marched en masse on the streets of Iran, Tunisia, and Egypt demanding radical reforms and the removal of the ruling regimes. Yet protesters were absent for a long time from the streets of these countries and in some cases, such as Syria, are still missing. What could explain the noisy circumstances in some contexts and the period of relative silence in others? By examining the structure of the ruling elite, existing opportunities and threats, and resources available to the dissident activists, I illustrate how the relationships between these elements help explain the emergence and dynamics of social protest. I focus on the following questions: what were the available opportunities/threats that facilitated popular revolt against the state in Tunisia, Egypt, and Iran, yet impeded mass uprising in other authoritarian environments, namely those of Syria, Morocco, and elsewhere? Why do authoritarian regimes with a history of brutal repression against their opponents tolerate certain degrees of dissident activism and restrain from harsh repressive measures at other historical moments? Why do the outcomes of popular contention differ across contexts? How does the examination of contentious politics in these countries help explain contentious politics elsewhere? Drawing on the works of social movement scholars, such as Asef Bayat, Quintan Wiktorowicz, Charles Tilly, and Doug McAdam, alongside national and international news sources and interviews, I demonstrate how anti-systemic activism is promoted or demoted by elite fragmentation, limited competitive elections, and the degree of access to information and social networks.