Despite the seeming clarity of the dictionary definition—”a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics, especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group”—defining and reacting sensibly to military coups proves difficult for many democratic governments. They must balance support for domestic security and broader social stability against the need to deter future ones. They must also consider how international relations shape global reactions and the resiliency of the regime in question.
One key factor that influences coup longevity and the possibility of restoring democratic rule is civilian support. Militaries can only stage successful coups if they have confidence that some segments of society back their actions, and portraying civilian support for military takeovers as exceptional misreads how these events unfold. It also benefits coupists, who can leverage the public’s confusion to present their actions as legitimate or revolutionary (as was done in Egypt in 2013).
Prominent scholars have shown that electoral authoritarian regimes that spawn from military coups tend to be less durable than those that originate with peaceful transitions to power. Yet, the exact reasons for this remain unclear. One possibility is that empowered militaries can simply become too comfortable with their material and political power to feel the need to stage a coup. Conversely, when dictatorships marginalize their military, they keep them too weak, financially and politically, to have any interest in overthrowing the regime.
About the Author
