"When the generals have up to now managed nothing, the
colonels have now to step in".
Colonel Claus Von Stauffenberg, 1944, ringleader of the
"Valkyrie" German Military conspiracy against Adolf Hitler
Most countries at one time or another have had their
destinies changed by the intervention of their militaries into their internal
politics. Brazil's military moved
against their monarchy making the country henceforth a republic. In the closing chapter of the English Civil
Wars General George Monck made the fateful decision to send his forces down
from Coldstream in Scotland to occupy London in order to bring about the
restoration of British Monarchy. Recently the elements of the Turkish military
allegedly took part in a coup against the controversial President Erdogan. If this was a genuine attempt by the Turkish
military to implement regime change, then this is in many ways a continuation
of a tradition the military has had in anointing itself the guardian of the
values of the republic Kemal Ataturk helped found which include secularism and
(with some irony) democracy. While in
power Kemal Ataturk forbid the Turkish military from participating or
interfering in partisan politics, but seemingly contradictorily gave it the
responsibility for being the guardian of the constitution. Militaries throughout the world are charged
with defending their country and it is often with this reason in mind (at least
nominally) that they have taken the extraordinary step of pushing aside their
political masters.
Coup d'etat translates directly from the original French as
"blow of state" is used in modern political language to refer to a
forceful seizure of power by a certain party.
Samuel Huntington identified three different types of coup d' etat;
Breakthrough coups, Arbiter coups and Veto coups. Breakthrough coups are when soldiers play the
part of a radical reformer, in Huntington's context to create a society where
the middle classes are more involved in governing decisions. Arbiter coups are said to take place in a
post-breakthrough society, where the military steps in because public order has
broken down. Veto coups take place in an
effort by the military to deliberately prevent mass participation in politics
or allegedly guard the values of a given society. The recent coup in Turkey can roughly be
categorised as a Veto coup since it involved the military acting against the
elected Government of Turkey, ironically for the stated purpose of protecting
democracy.
Breakthrough coups which have been initiated have not always
been carried out to help the middle classes, since the working classes have
often benefitted too. Army Captain
Thomas Sankara of Burkina Faso led a coup against another coup clique heralding
a reformist government which introduced environmental programmes, mass
vaccination and anti-poverty programmes.
Napoleon Bonaparte's coup of The Directory at the end of the French
Revolution was in many ways a combination of all three coups. Napoleon did introduce reforms such as the
Code Napoleon and the emancipation of the Jews and yet this also had support to
stop the disorder associated with the revolution, while he controlled which
parts of the middle class advanced in his regime. However some coup leaders have seized power
while advertising this effort as a genuine radical people's coup only to betray
such ideals. Idi Amin's seizure of power
in Uganda in 1971 exemplifies this tragic incidence very well. Amin's coup was popular since his predecessor
Milton Obote was widely acknowledged to be a tyrannical and corrupt. However Amin proved to be much worse
introducing years of disastrous policies including but not exclusively the mass
killing of political opponents, rampant defense spending, rampant corruption
and disastrous economic policies.
Arbiter coups are most unusual since they are seemingly
blatant violations of democracy made in the name of defending it. Some of the most interesting examples of this
can be found in Africa. In Nigeria
Olesum Obasanjo who was a part of a military junta handed power back to a
civilian government. Obasanjo based the
new democratic constitution for Nigeria on the United States Constitution
before the handover. In Ghana Flight
Commander Jerry Rawlings overthrew a civilian government after it got embroiled
in a financial crisis but later restored multi-party democracy. Early on in Pakistan's history Pakistani
civilians had street celebrations when the military took power for the first
time from a civilian government widely seen as dysfunctional, corrupt and
incompetent. Although as time went on,
uncertainty grew and Pakistanis started to wonder loudly how long it would be
until the soldiers returned to barracks.
Veto coups much of the time exemplify clearly the folly of
having the military involved in politics, as well as the human tragedy it can
bring to a given country. Perhaps the
most infamous example is General Augusto Pinochet's coup in Chile on 11th
September. This military coup like many others in Latin
America was given covert support and encouragement by the United States and was
initiated with the declared aim of fighting Communism. President Salvador Allende was indeed a
Marxist, but one who undoubtedly had an electoral mandate. It is also clear from historical record that
much of the economic chaos existing in Chile at the time was more due to the
economic war the United States was waging on the country (to help justify the
coup) than Allende's economic policies.
While the economy stabilised under Pinochet this was at the grotesque
cost of thousands of lives.
It could be said that military coups are times of great
uncertainty and at worst a sign that a country is on a downward spiral. It is not a complete coincidence that they
often occur in newly independent countries where institutions are weak. This does not mean that military coups cannot
happen in long established
countries. France faced the real
possibility of a military coup during the Algeria Crisis, which is widely
thought to have it's roots in the French military's losses in the Second World
War. However in the case of the newly
independent countries the coups normally happen due to widespread
dissatisfaction with political elites who are often corrupt or ineffectual,
therefore the military are often seen as the ones to get things done.
However even the apparently good coups came with a
price. Thomas Sankara's revolution in
Burkina Faso came with the price of a lack of democracy and an abysmal human
rights record. Jerry Rawlings' time in
power in Ghana led to approximately 300 citizens disappearing due to his
"house clearing". In the case
of the "Valkyrie" plot against Hitler many historians cite the
plotting officers' old Prussian militaristic ideology as reason to doubt that
if they were successful, they would plant the seeds of a new German democracy
or submit to unconditional surrender conditions. And of course most coups, though not all,
come with some form of loss of life and liberty.
I think that perhaps instead of daring to praise the
military coup men themselves it is perhaps more honest to the spirit of
democracy to remember those who have courageously stood against them. The former President of Brazil Dilma Rousseff
spent many years being brutally interrogated and put in isolation for her
defiance to the Brazilian Military. Aung
San Suu Kyi refused to leave Burma and surrender to the military even when her
husband was dying on the other side of the world.
I would say the strongest argument against coups apart from
the damage they cause is the way they make democratic institutions less
credible, since they are merely overridden.
That said I will leave readers to consider the dilemmas faced by people
who live under two examples of non-military tyrannies that render such institutions
meaningless already. In Zimbabwe
corruption is rife as is political violence thanks to the old dictator President
Mugabe who uses his power to make elections and the judicial branch completely
meaningless. In Venezuela President
Maduro gets ever more powers from a parliament that bows to his every whim as
he imprisons more and more opposition politicians and activists. Some of the Venezuelan opposition has openly
called for the army to intervene. My
question is; could a coup make things any worse?
