In an interconnected world, policies implemented by a nation-state exert externalities across borders. If those policies are unpopular, other nations may seek to forcibly overthrow the government and install a new administration that implements more desirable policies. This is known as regime change.
Regime change is often justified by the idea that a despotic government harms its own citizens, and that the people would vote for a more benevolent government if given a chance at democracy. This logic is flawed for several reasons. First, a foreign intervention can cause the population to lose faith in their government and make it harder to trust future governments. Second, for a democratic transition to take place, certain political conditions must be met, including a stable economy and the presence of civil society organizations that can monitor government actions.
Regardless of the rationale, regime change is a high-risk policy with many potential downsides for American interests. The most obvious problem is that forcible regime change typically fails to achieve its intended goals. As a recent panel at the Cato Institute noted, the United States has a long history of overthrowing foreign governments to serve its own political and economic interests and it often ends up creating more problems than it solves.
The other problem is that it can be difficult to know when a regime should be changed. To avoid a mistake like the 2003 Iraq War, a government seeking regime change should have a clear case for why it needs to be replaced and a viable alternative ready to take power if needed. For example, in Venezuela there is a credible alternative in the National Assembly leader Juan Guaido who has been recognized as the nation’s legitimate president.
About the Author
