military coup d'etat

[welsh]

I am doing some reading on coup de'etats in developing countries and why they happen so frequently. One of the arguments is that the military has personalize grievances and decides to take over to obtain it's own goals.

Another argument says that it's the lack of professionalism. Countries lack professional armies that "know their place". But this seems to miss the point. Armies have political interests as well, and if they get shafted they might rebel.

Furthermore, not only do armies have political issues, they are collectives, they are heavily armed, and they are closely tied to the centers of power.

Note recently that the head muckity muck in China finally got the position of national head only when he took over control over the army.

So why so few coups in developed states? With the exception of French paratroopers helping Charles De Gaulle come to power, some problems in Russia during it's transition, then there is the role of the military in South Korea and Taiwan.....

Under what circumstances do you think the military of your favorite developed nation might decide to launch a coup d' etat adn try to take over?

Why do you think militaries in developed states generally stay "in the barracks"?

 

[Sander]

Good thread. Damn, this made me think for a while. That's been a while.

For one, I think culture matters a lot. For example, a coup-d'etat is less likely to happen here than elsewhere, because we, currently, have a culture of deliberation, not one of aggression. The military is extremely unlikely to rebel just because it wouldn't fit at all. A very extreme situation would have to come around for any coup-d'etat to happen. Consider WW2 here, resistance was small, though it was reasonably fierce, and a lot of people started off with a mindset of "well, they're here now, let's just make the best of it", not one of aggression or resistance.

Another major factor would be the level of dissatisfaction, obviously, among the military, for whatever reason. It would probably be THE major factor, because if you have a satisfied military, you won't soon have a coup-d'etat.

A smaller factor would be a military leader with charisma, someone able to lead the troops, and not only that, but with enough ambition (not dissatisfaction, just ambition) to want to become the country's leader.

Another factor would have to be the hierarchy and mentality of the army: if you have an army with a relatively loose hierarchy or a poorely defined heirarchy it's much harder to get control than with a well-defined sand strict hierarchy. The mentality matters as well, German mentality during the 30s and 40s was one of "Befehl is befehl" (An order is an order), but recently it seems that most military men are taught to think for themselves, or at least it seems so in the more developed nations, this is probably a rather important factor as well.

 

[welsh]

Do you think the French were less deliberative then? What about the ancient Greeks and Romans- both were societies of people that deliberated and thought deeply about such issues.

Not sure about culture- All sorts of societies have had coups. Nor are coups foreign to Europe. Look at Spain and Franco.

Do you think it matters if the army is volunteer, or if it's drafted/conscripted.

One of the policies of France before World War 2 was to rely on a conscript army because it was less a threat to the leftwing government?

I would think the reason why Japan is less likely to have a coup than Korea is because the army is small, democratic transitions are well established, the population is generally pacifist, and any coup would upset the prevailing economic system that benefits the army.

In contrast, military coups have often been launched because the military either feels that there is a threat from the inside of the government that threatens the economic and social well-being of the country- a guardian argument. The paratroopers that propelled De Gaulle would probably fit that role.

Alternatively there is the "we need to the army to keep our economy growing and developing" the developmental argument- that supports Pinochet.

Under what circumstances would you think a coup would be acceptable? I could see many reasons why coups could occur in places like Russia or Israel, for instance, but what about in the UK, the US, Netherlands?

 

[Gonzalez]

Why do you think militaries in developed states generally stay "in the barracks"?

Well, I don't think they are precisely in the barracks. Maybe the US military (as an example of a developed state military) is rather busy in other parts of the world, in UN missions or other, since they are involved in world policy as well, and don't have much time to question internal matters, they let that to the president.

Patton said, or sort of what I remember he said, that:

"...The government sould be let to the politicians. But they allways let us short and satart with another war..."

Using his usual irony.

Anyhow, less developed countries are not as active, if no not active at all, in international policies, and tend to worry about internal policies, then perhaps begin to think about how right ro not right the country is being ran.

This may not explain it all, but could be a factor.[/i][/b]

 

[Gonzalez]

Under what circumstances would you think a coup would be acceptable? I could see many reasons why coups could occur in places like Russia or Israel, for instance

And such reasons would be what exactly? Maybe if you really get to answer this you'll have the answer for the other question you made.

 

[DarkCorp]

Power distribution, political motivations, standard of living, leadership, etc, the list goes on.

I think it would much to hard to pinpoint the reason for coups because they all depend on the "right" situation.

Like in Spain, people saw Germany getting bigger and bigger everyday. Some might have preferred to be on friendly terms with them and so we have motivation for a coup. Also the populace might see the strides Germany was making and like Mussolini, wanted a piece of the world pie. When the current government decided to stay peaceful or sided with the wrong people, you have grounds for a coup. Or it could be sheer political manipulation. Germany was probably going to take over Spain sooner or later so why not forment some revolts.

Rome: Well the standard of living was pretty good. Leadership varied. Power distribution was very one sided. Technology wasn't developed enough to the point where even a small conflict would cause enormous casualties. As far as I remember, the only times the army took control was when the leadership was weak or incompetent, Nero for an example. Also since the army was the prime weilder of force (no such thing as small groups doing army size damage like today), they could very well just rule by numbers alone.

Your average politically corrupt/drug czar country: Well standard of living is low. There is constant political manipulation from bigger countries (Soviet Union and the United States). Weak leadership (dictator of the week club). Revenge killing by current leadership (when one side just can't forgive the other, no matter who comes to power, the coups continue).

US, UK, Netherlands, etc: Well standard of living is pretty good I would say. Military power is equally distributed (since the army does not solely hold power, any coup could backfire in horrible ways). The population is well educated (the populace is more concerned about living, intellectual, monetary pursuits than survival, AKA the dark ages).

There are probably other factors I forgot to mention but these all stick out in my head.

 

[Colt]

Like some of you above have pointed out, one of the ways that it could happen in a developed country with an established military would be for a charismatic military leader to try to wrest control of the country away from a president who is controversial or disliked. Just as an example, and to not start a politcal debate, we can use Bush. Bush seems to be liked or disliked with much more fervor this time around, probably because of Iraq (either way) . There is a definate portion of the population who simply doesn't like him and think he's a terrible leader...

Now, if there was someone like Patton who decided that the President was doing a bad job and was leading the nation places it shouldn't go, felt it was his duty to save it... What if he overthrew the presidency so that new elections could be held (in his supporters' words) ? I think that the country would split into groups of supporters , groups of people who are against it, and another group who is against it because it is illegal.

Remember, this is hypothetical and you can pick your president/military leaders. - Colt

 

[The Vault Dweller]

I do believe every Military leader despises the government as the government never acts fully in support of the military. Either they try to make cuts to it or expand it, but in their way and not necessarily the military way.

Im sure most military leaders are ambitious and feel they do whats best for thier country. If they feel the government is doing a bad enough job and that the people will better support a military leader then a coup is likely. I think all military leaders think they can do a better job...its just a question of whether they can succeed or not.

I know why it hasnt happened in the US. The moment the military would come to power countless right-winger's would arm themselves to protect themselves from a what they would deem a government gone wrong. Thats why the second amendment was created...to protect the people from a government that isnt under their control. I hope it never comes to that...

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Colt]

I know why it hasnt happened in the US. The moment the military would come to power countless right-winger's would arm themselves to protect themselves from a what they would deem a government gone wrong. Thats why the second amendment was created...to protect the people from a government that isnt under their control. I hope it never comes to that...

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

In my hypothetical situation, I would be one of the ones who was against it simply because it is illegal. Of course, if the bastard were using MOABs on children's hospitals in Kraplokistan, he'd probably be getting his ass fried either way. - Colt

 

[DarkCorp]

Not to mention that power iin the U.S. is too segmented for a total military takeover.

We still have militias, national guard, law enforcement, and even sections of the main military that would disagree and break off were there be mention of a military takeover.

In order for a coup to succeed, the military must be nited firmly under one leader with no comparable opposition in the way.

 

[Sander]

Do you think the French were less deliberative then? What about the ancient Greeks and Romans- both were societies of people that deliberated and thought deeply about such issues.

Well, yes. The fact is that violence is abhorred, probably much more than in past times, right now, and, another important thing, is that we here have no history of violent strikes or rebellions at all. Really, if you compare us to surrounding countries, we are less violent and more deliberate, at least in the political life.

Not sure about culture- All sorts of societies have had coups. Nor are coups foreign to Europe. Look at Spain and Franco. [/quote[
True, but Spain is vastly different from such countries as the Netherlands, Norway and other countries.

Do you think it matters if the army is volunteer, or if it's drafted/conscripted.

One of the policies of France before World War 2 was to rely on a conscript army because it was less a threat to the leftwing government?

No. Whether or not you are a volunteer or a conscript has little to do with your willingness to do something about the current domestic state of the country, or with following leaders.

I would think the reason why Japan is less likely to have a coup than Korea is because the army is small, democratic transitions are well established, the population is generally pacifist, and any coup would upset the prevailing economic system that benefits the army.

Yes, and the fact that they are pacifist has a lot to do with their current culture, hence my point of culture. I agree, though, that the size of the army matters a lot. And the economic situation has a lot to do with the population's (dis)satsifaction.

In contrast, military coups have often been launched because the military either feels that there is a threat from the inside of the government that threatens the economic and social well-being of the country- a guardian argument. The paratroopers that propelled De Gaulle would probably fit that role.

As would the Pinochet in Chili.

Alternatively there is the "we need to the army to keep our economy growing and developing" the developmental argument- that supports Pinochet.

I would've put him under the Guardian portion, because it was also a part of "Socialism would ruin our country".

Under what circumstances would you think a coup would be acceptable? I could see many reasons why coups could occur in places like Russia or Israel, for instance, but what about in the UK, the US, Netherlands?

I think you should speak about a general requirement: probably the requirement of a general dissatisfaction of the populace, and the government who ignores that.
One requirement would have to be, though, that the coup leaders do not become totalitarian leaders. That's qyite unlikely, though.

 

[John Uskglass]

True, but Spain is vastly different from such countries as the Netherlands, Norway and other countries.

Yes and no. You guys turned away from Democracy in 1815, as I remember. This was for similar reasons to Nazi Germany, in that it was a conservative reaction against an overly left, revolutionary and bloody nation, only in this case the USSR was Bonapartes-Restored Burbons.

It's not about culture, and I think it's a little funny Sander is arguing that position, as it's usually I who is arguing the 'Orientalist' perspective.

The notion that China, Chile, Wiemar Germany and the Ottoman Empire are essentially a part of the same cultural group is kind of mind boggiling.

It's social development, as in less developed nations, without the proper taxbase to fund proper militaries and MPs, armies can and do run wild, and a lack of Democratic institutions, in cases like Wiemar Germany or Italy, and is, as you seem to be forgetting, more often then not the product of a particularly talented individual; Mousillini as a liar, Allende was pretty smart if fascsitic, Hitler was a good speaker, etc....

 

[Wooz]

Consider WW2 here, resistance was small, though it was reasonably fierce, and a lot of people started off with a mindset of "well, they're here now, let's just make the best of it", not one of aggression or resistance.

If by "here" you design Europe, you're wrong. Warsaw 1944. Define "here", please, I'm a bit mixed up...

I believe military regimes in "North" countries (using some bloke's definition of "civilized" states) stay in the barracks, because it would be extremely difficult for even a very sophisticated army to take over a political regime.

The reason is simple, they wouldn't have enough credibility amongst the population to justify such an action, as people in these kind of societies have tremendous democracy expectations for their governments.

The people would overthrow such a government using one mean or another.

Arise Comrades!

 

[John Uskglass]

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0055024/

Very interesting movie on the same subject. In it, Nazi Germany defeats England and Russia, and the US is attempting a landing in England from Ireland.

The story follows a nurse who witnesses a massacre of British nationalists at the hands of German rulers, sympathizers and people who just want to succed in the harsh Britan of it's world. By the end, however, British Nationalists, supported by American troops, have taken back London, and massacre the Germans and German sympthatizers in precicely the same manner.

 

[Sander]

Yes and no. You guys turned away from Democracy in 1815, as I remember. This was for similar reasons to Nazi Germany, in that it was a conservative reaction against an overly left, revolutionary and bloody nation, only in this case the USSR was Bonapartes-Restored Burbons.

Yes, but it wasn't a coup-d'etat. And the culture now is completely different from the culture then. Seriously.

If by "here" you design Europe, you're wrong. Warsaw 1944. Define "here", please, I'm a bit mixed up...

I know that. I was talking about the Netherlands.

It's not about culture, and I think it's a little funny Sander is arguing that position, as it's usually I who is arguing the 'Orientalist' perspective.

The notion that China, Chile, Wiemar Germany and the Ottoman Empire are essentially a part of the same cultural group is kind of mind boggiling. Shocked

I'm not doing that. I'm saying that military coup d'etats depend in part on the culture, I'm not saying that that means that the cultures are the same where they occur, just that they have certain elements that make the succeeding and occurring of a coup d'etat more probable.

It's social development, as in less developed nations, without the proper taxbase to fund proper militaries and MPs, armies can and do run wild, and a lack of Democratic institutions, in cases like Wiemar Germany or Italy, and is, as you seem to be forgetting, more often then not the product of a particularly talented individual; Mousillini as a liar, Allende was pretty smart if fascsitic, Hitler was a good speaker, etc....

Read my first post. I specifically said that a charismatic leader with ambition was needed as well.
Oh, and Weimar Germany wasn't undemocratic. Plus, the Nazi's didn't have a military coup d'etat, but a democratic one.

 

[welsh]

Not to mention that power iin the U.S. is too segmented for a total military takeover.

We still have militias, national guard, law enforcement, and even sections of the main military that would disagree and break off were there be mention of a military takeover.

In order for a coup to succeed, the military must be nited firmly under one leader with no comparable opposition in the way.

I think that's a good point. I have often though that this is one way to also deter police corruption. Multiple and overlapping jurisdictions of military and police forces could keep tabs on each other. The more that exist, the more difficult it would be to launch an take over. This works for keeping the police from being too corrupt in one area because they could be investigated by other branches.

But then the question also goes to why would the military coup-

THe two common arguments- the developmental or guardian thesis would still probably apply.

But then what keeps the military out of government.

Well, I think a coup woudl be more difficult with a conscript army in a prosperous society than a professional army with it's own institutional interests.

But there might also be the issue that the military doesn't want to intervene because the economy is moving well enough that there is not internal instability issues.

 

[DarkCorp]

Well its also how well your populace is educated.

The american populace has been indoctrinated with freedom, liberty, righteous, etc attitudes since the beginning of time. From movies to books to even gaming, it always had something to do with peoples rights. Heck the revolutionary war that gave birth to this country has been touted for so long it isn't funny.

After all this righteous propaganda, your average citizen would view any power fluxuation to be despicable and an affront to peoples freedoms. Its the balance of governmental and military powers that makes the average citizen feel safe including me.

So in your example, the military is kept out of the government because its the peoples will. Any takeover by any one element, would be crushed by internal, governmental, and civillian forces.

PS: I agree with Welsh. A conscripted army with a stable home front would be better since the power is literally weilded by the people, for the people. The only available pathway for change is by popular referendum.

 

[welsh]

Ok, Darkcorp, but what if a majority, or even a sizeable minority of the population supports the coup.

Most Latin American coups have had some signficiant support- primarily from upper classes that see the rise of democracy as a threat to their control over the state and economy. One often finds a close relationship between business and the army.... kind of like you are starting to see here..... hmmmm.....

So if, say, the American people, or a society in Europe, were to feel sufficiently threatened, and especially their economic position was threatened, might not they support a coup?

IF a significant portion of the population supports a coup, might the military not try it?

Furthermore, lets turn back to the military- if we can assume that the military has it's own interests at stake.

It might think, if we coup, we might fuck the economy up. Since we need the economy, no coup.

But it might think that the coup is necessary to sustain the coup- here we have a mix of the guardian and developmental models.

A study on democracies has indicated that once a democracy reaches a certain standard of living- at the time it was about $6000, coups or other democratic rollback becomes almost unthinkable.

But why?

Is it the society that has the pressure to keep the military sedated?
Is it the military sees no need to coup?
Or is it something else, that militaries lack the support to launch such a coup when basic human needs are satisfied?

 

[Colt]

I think that's a good point. I have often though that this is one way to also deter police corruption. Multiple and overlapping jurisdictions of military and police forces could keep tabs on each other. The more that exist, the more difficult it would be to launch an take over. This works for keeping the police from being too corrupt in one area because they could be investigated by other branches.

This is actually what happened in Soviet Russia. The different branches of the government watched each other and made sure the others didn't gain too much power. Sort of the same thing with the executive, judicial, and legislative branches in the US. Just more agressive and paranoid. The same thing is still going on in Russia but not as badly, if I recall correctly.

It might think, if we coup, we might fuck the economy up. Since we need the economy, no coup.

But it might think that the coup is necessary to sustain the coup- here we have a mix of the guardian and developmental models.

Who says that the military really has to think? That would somewhat denote a conspiracy of forces within the military thinking and planning this out. I think that almost any coup is going to be chaotic to a certain degree, no matter how professional the military conducting it. - Colt

 

[DarkCorp]

Regardless of whether its a democratic or corruption filled nation, those that have power are often closely related to the dictator/"peoples leader" themselves. They obviously do not and should not be counted on as representitives of the people as a whole. Like China for example. Sure the nationalists under General Chang Kai Shek had the support of the "upper class", but that doesn't mean jack and squat. They were eventually defeated by a much larger, and poorer, "true peoples" force under Mao Ze Dong.

As to your first question: The military, the police, the national guard, the militias, etc, they are all comprised of the "population". So if the populace supports it, a coup not only gains a vital propaganda victory through credibility, but it has just found a new resource to fuel it. All of a sudden you have thousands of "pro-coup" infiltrators that can undermine any government attempt to crush the growing rebellion.

As to the second question: It ties in with the first. If the military sees no reason for a coup then why forment one. I mean why would general whomever risk his/her own life, the lives of their men and their families over nothing?

Third question: Sometimes coup do happen even though theres no need for it. This is often brought about by the "power play". If the Soviets want to establish a military/industrial/economic stronghold within a certain country, then they are obviously going to fund/forment a revolutionary army. Well the Americans don't like the Soviet idea very much and so they send their own "assets" in to make sure the ruling government doesn't succumb to communist shennanigans. Whats left is what happened often in Vietnam. Villagers see M16's "Go Americans". They see red stars and AKs, "Go Communists".