Jump to content

Coup d'état

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 71.206.196.96 (talk) at 14:49, 25 November 2007 (→‎Currently-serving leaders of regimes who came to power via coups). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

"Coup" redirects here. For other uses, see Coup (disambiguation).
Part of a series on
War
(outline)
History
Military
Battlespace
Weapons
Tactics
List of military tactics
Operational
Strategy
List of military strategies and concepts
Grand strategy
Administrative
Organization
Personnel
Logistics
Science
Law
Theory
Non-warfare
Culture
Related
Lists

A coup d'état (Template:PronEng or AHD: [ko͞o"dā tä]), or simply coup, is the sudden overthrow of a government, often through illegal means by a part of the state establishment — mostly replacing just the high-level figures. It is also an example of political engineering. It can be (although not necessarily) violent, but it is different from a revolution, which is staged by a larger group and radically changes the political system through unconstitutional means.

The term is French for "a (sudden) blow (or strike) to a state" (literally, coup, hit, and état, state, ). The term coup can also be used in a casual sense to mean a gain in advantage of one nation or entity over another; e.g. an intelligence coup. By analogy, the term is also applied to corporations, etc; e.g. a boardroom coup.

Since the unsuccessful coup attempts of Wolfgang Kapp in 1920, and of Adolf Hitler in 1923, the Swiss German word "Putsch" (pronounced /pʊtʃ/) (originally coined with the Züriputsch of 1839) is often used also, even in French (such as the putsch of November 8, 1942 and the putsch of April 21, 1961, both in Algiers) and Russian (August Putsch in 1991), while the direct German translation is Staatsstreich.

Tactically, a coup usually involves control of some active portion of the military while neutralizing the remainder of a country's armed services. This active group captures or expels leaders, seizes physical control of important government offices, means of communication, and the physical infrastructure, such as streets and power plants. The coup succeeds if its opponents fail to dislodge the plotters, allowing them to consolidate their position, obtain the surrender or acquiescence of the populace and surviving armed forces, and claim legitimacy. Coups typically use the power of the existing government for its own takeover. As Edward Luttwak remarks in his Coup d'État: A Practical Handbook: "A coup consists of the infiltration of a small but critical segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder." In this sense, use of military or other organized force is not the defining feature of a coup d'État.

Etymology

While the coup d'état has been used in politics well into ancient times[1], the expression itself is relatively new. According to the Oxford Dictionary, in 1646 Howell first used coup d'État in his book Louis XIII, Life of Richelieu. It was first used in England in 1811 by Thompson, referring to Napoleon Bonaparte's 1799 overthrow of the Revolutionary Directory.[citation needed]

According to Prof. Thomas Childers of the University of Pennsylvania the lack of a word to denote a sudden unconstitutional change of government derives from the political institutions of England. Although France’s and Germany’s history are liberally colored by this type of political event, the history of England is not. England's last coup d’état was the 1688 Glorious Revolution, in which William of Orange, together with a group of parliamentarians, overthrew James II, the last Roman Catholic English ruler and facilitated the establishing of a modern parliamentary democracy. In England, this is an action that occurs very rarely, and for which there has not been the need to create a word.

The pronunciamento

The traditional analogue of the military coup in Spain and the Spanish American republics was termed a pronunciamiento (literally, "pronouncement" or "declaration"). The difference, according to Edward Luttwak, between a pronunciamiento and a coup d'etat is that in a coup, the overthrow of the civilian government is undertaken by a faction of the country's armed forces, whereas a pronunciamiento is the overthrow of a civilian government by the official action of the command structure of its armed forces. The term itself deemphasizes the forceful aspect of the coup, and instead focuses on the customary statement issued by the leader or leaders of the military, which declares the existing government null and void and explains their reasons for assuming control. These pronunciamientos were often published as formal written documents in order to attract popular support for the uprising, thus blurring the line between coup and insurrection. In Mexico, where such declarations were often quite detailed, formal, and issued as written texts, they were given the name of plans. A prominent example of a pronunciamiento in the history of Spain was the successful coup of September 1868 against the reigning queen, Isabel II, who was driven from the country by military forces headed by General Prim and General Serrano. A more recent example of a Pronunciamiento occurred in Thailand in 2006, when the armed forces as a whole took over the duties of government and exiled the prime minister.

In the recent years, the traditional military coup has declined worldwide. The more usual form of military intervention, which some regard as coups d'état, uses the threat of military force to remove a vulnerable or unpopular leader. In contrast to straight coups d'état, the military does not directly assume power, but rather installs civilian leaders it finds more palatable. One advantage of this tactic is the appearance of greater legitimacy. A classic example is the collapse of the French Fourth Republic. This has also occurred twice in the Philippines. In Mauritania a bloodless coup d'état happened on August 3, 2005 when the president was in Saudi Arabia.

In recent years, there have been several examples of the potential for mass street protests to persuade the military to withdraw its support from leaders, sometimes leading the opposition to take power in coup-like fashion. In situations of this sort, such as in Serbia (2000), Argentina (2001), Philippines (1986 & 2001), Bolivia (2003), Georgia (2003), Ukraine (2004-2005), Lebanon, Ecuador and Bolivia (2005), popular uprisings forced the sitting political leader to resign from office, causing someone new to assume the role. This often results in a period of stability and calm, in which an unknown and uncontroversial interim leader can run the government until new elections can be held. These events are not generally called coups, because they are not orchestrated by a small group but are the result of popular action. The Iranian Revolution of 1979 could be put in this category, although it was clearly led by the Ayatollah Khomeini, because it began with popular opposition to the rule of the last Shah of Iran.

Types of coups

Samuel P. Huntington has divided coups into three types (ignoring Luttwak's non-military coups)

  • Guardian coups: These coups have been described as musical chairs. The stated aim of this form of coup is to improve public order, efficiency, or to end corruption. There is usually no fundamental shift in the structure of power, and the leaders of these types of coups generally portray their actions as a temporary and unfortunate necessity. One of the early examples of this is the coup by Sulla in 88 BC which displaced the elected leadership of Marius in Rome. A more recent instance was when ruling civilian Prime Minister of Pakistan Zulfikar Ali Bhutto was overthrown by Chief of Army Staff General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq in 1977, the latter whom cited widespread civil disorder and impending civil war as justification for his taking power. Just over two decades later General Pervez Musharraf overthrew Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif on mostly the same grounds in 1999. Many nations with guardian coups undergo many shifts between civilian and military governments. Examples include Pakistan, Turkey, and Thailand. Bloodless coups usually arise from Guardian coups.

Coups can also be classified by the level of the military that leads the coup. Veto coups and guardian coups tend to be led by senior officers. Breakthrough coups tend to be led by junior officers or NCOs. In cases where the coup is led by junior officers or enlisted men, the coup is also a mutiny, which can have grave implications for the organizational structure of the military.

There is also a category known as bloodless coups in which the mere threat of violence is enough to force the current government to step aside. Bloodless coups are so called because they involve no violence and thus no bloodshed. Napoleon's 18 Brumaire coup is often pointed out as an example of bloodless coup, showing that bloodless coups are not always considered to be "bloodless": on 18 Brumaire, several members of parliament were thrown out the windows of the building where they assembled[citation needed]. More recently, Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan came to power in a bloodless coup in 1999, and Sonthi Boonyaratglin came to power in Thailand at the head of the Council for Democratic Reform under Constitutional Monarchy in 2006

The term self-coup is used when the current government assumes extraordinary powers not allowed by the legislation with the aid of the armed forces. A historical example is the actions of then President and later French Emperor Louis Napoléon Bonaparte while a more modern example is Alberto Fujimori in Peru, who was democratically elected, but in 1992 took control of the legislative and judicial powers and installed an authoritarian government. It is also argued that the assumption of "emergency powers" by King Gyanendra of Nepal was a self-coup.

Post-military-coup governments

After the coup, the military is faced with the issue of the type of government to establish. In Latin America, it was common for the post-coup government to be led by a junta, a committee of the chiefs of staff of the various armed forces. A common form of African post-coup government is the revolutionary assembly, a quasi-legislative body made of members elected by the army. In Pakistan, the military leader typically assumes the title of chief martial law administrator.

According to Huntington, most coup leaders act under the concept of right orders: they believe that the best way to solve the problems their country is facing is to issue correct orders. This view of government underestimates the difficulty in implementing government policy and the amount of possible political resistance to certain orders. It also presupposes that everyone that matters in the country shares a single common interest, and the only question is how to pursue it.

Currently-serving leaders of regimes who came to power via coups

       (His rule was subsequently confirmed via popular election that was apparently free and fair.)

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Julius Caesar's civil war, January 10, 49 BC
Look up coup d'état in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

References

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Coup_d%27état&oldid=173685585"