It is postulated that collective labour movements responding to demands for political reform, rather than to workplace demands, are key actors in democratic mobilisation. Contrary to this proposition, this paper draws on evidence from labour movements and related social allies in Cambodia to examine why they fail to mobilise democratic revolutions. By analysing the development of the labour movement and key social actors, the paper argues that, because they possess weak social and institutional alliances with political actors, such as opposition parties and other interest groups, to establish a democratic revolution, labour movements do not 'burst onto the political scene.' The capacity of labour movements to transform 'democratic intent' to 'democratic action' is thus hindered by the ability of authoritarian rulers and their coalitions, including business elites, to tightly control and co-opt any alliances of labour movements designed to put pressure on the ruling regime. In essence, capitalist development does not strengthen the capacity of but co-opt the excluded labour groups to break down the opposition alliance to prevent democratisation.In the democratisation literature, workers have been considered an important and decisive actor in rallying for democracy. Diverging from Moore's "no bourgeois, no democracy" contingency 2 thesis, Rueschemeyer, Stephens and Stephens argue that capitalist development strengthens the organisational capacity of the excluded working class, which enables them to pressure for democracy. 1 Collier and Mahoney argue, in the same vein, that labour movements 2 play a prominent role in delegitimating authoritarian regimes. 3 However, the opposite consideration -why some labour movements fail to mobilise for democratic revolution -is less established in the literature. 4 In other words, what lies beneath the failure of some labour movements to transform their agenda "from workplace demands to demands for broad political liberties"? 5 Democratic revolutions are nonviolent, urban-based, mass uprisings that pressure for an end to authoritarian rule and demand a transition to democracy. However, this study posits that democratic revolutions do not necessarily entail the toppling of the dictator or ruling party.Labour movements can apply so much pressure on the regime that the ruling elites agree, while maintaining power, to adopt radical reforms that fundamentally reshape prevailing institutional arrangements; for example, fair elections, imposition of executive term limits, judicial reform and military professionalisation, among others. 6 Existing theories of labour's democratic behaviour focus on the moment when labour has "burst onto the political scene" and challenged dictatorial rule. 7 This paper aims to complement this body of literature with accounts of deradicalised labour movements -less extreme political opposition and lacking strong social institutional parameters (alliances with and among local and international social and political actors) -that fail to establish themselve...