What is the overthrow of power called? Coup d'état of the 21st century. See what "coup d'état" is in other dictionaries

armed seizure of state power, carried out by illegal, "unconstitutional" means and (unlike a revolution or uprising) by the forces of a small group of people.

Great Definition

Incomplete definition ↓

STATE COUP

(coup d'tat) Sudden, violent and illegal removal of the government, usually carried out by the military; often it is preceded by prolonged mass unrest, and the immediate cause is a direct attack against the military. In most cases, a coup results in the replacement of one ruling group by another. It may be the first step towards a form of military government with more or less civilian participation (perhaps requiring the cooperation of government officials, professionals and middle class, sympathetic politicians, parties and professional groups, say, peasant associations and trade unions). In a coup d'état, the focus is on repairing the damage done to the military, so it usually does not lead to large-scale changes in the social fabric. More often than not, a coup d'état is presented as effective remedy prevention of revolutionary changes "from below" by carrying out some transformations "from above". Nevertheless, the intervention of the military rarely contributes to the solution of accumulated socio-economic problems. It would be wrong to say that there are no coups d'etat in advanced industrial countries, yet they are extremely rare where government, no matter how popular, exists on a legitimate basis and where regular and organized change of administration is widely practiced. In Europe, military interventions were triggered either by the failure of decolonization policies (France in 1958 and Portugal in 1974), or by rapid economic change and political polarization (Greece in 1967), or by the crisis of communism in Eastern Europe (Poland, 1981). G.). The strengthening of the European Union, in which democracy is a sine qua non, is also seen as a stabilizing factor. Moreover, here the military has at its disposal constitutional means of defending their corporate and professional interests. However, in developing and underdeveloped countries, military intervention in politics was common until the 1980s. The nature and frequency of coup d'état depends on the country and specific conditions. Latin America has the most "rich" since the birth of the republics; experience of military intervention in politics; they also occurred in relatively developed countries such as Brazil, Chile and Argentina. In newly independent African countries, with no system of free and regular elections, and with governments largely personalized, with limited power and little legal basis, coup d'état quickly became a common means of replacing them. There are several different but related schools of thought dealing with the nature and causes of coup d'état. Some try to explain them by social upheavals, economic decline, political and institutional failures. According to this view, the intervention of the military in politics is related to their reaction to strong social and political unrest in a society with a low or minimal level of political culture. The military acts almost "in absentia", filling the vacuum of central power. Other researchers seek to explain military intervention in politics in the organizational advantages of the army (discipline, centralized command structure, cohesion) compared to civilian institutions in underdeveloped countries. From their point of view, the interference in politics is most likely generated by deep disillusionment with the civilian leadership, caused by its incompetence and corruption. Some focus primarily on the internal politics of the armed forces, insisting that coups inspired by personal ambition, corporate interests, electoral rivalries, and often violent displays of ethnic and group allegiances are more or less accidental. At the same time, the emergence in Latin America in the 1960s–80s. authoritarian military regimes are attributed to an unsuccessful model economic development based on the idea of ​​replacing imported goods with domestic ones and the need to attract large foreign investment in the restoration of an export-based economy. The military was determined to stay in power to rebuild society and create favorable conditions for foreign investors. It is doubtful whether the complex and variable phenomenon under consideration can be explained by one or more variable factors. Meanwhile, the military regimes themselves are increasingly concerned about how to get out of the scene; how to get out of control without triggering another coup. Since the 1980s the situation has become even more aggravated due to the debt crisis and the tightening of requirements of creditor states to establish effective management. The International Monetary Organizations also began to strongly demand the creation of a multi-party democracy as a condition for further aid. As a consequence of this, in the countries of the Third World (Third World) the number of attempted military coups d'état has sharply decreased. This trend is especially noticeable in Latin America, but in other regions the military leadership continues to resist demands to hand over power. But for example, in Ghana, the military agreed to hold elections and were back in power.

In November 2017, it will be one hundred years since the event that began to be called the October Revolution took place in Russia. Some argue that it was a coup d'état. Discussions about this continue to this day. This article is intended to help you sort out the problem.

If there's a coup

The past century was rich in events that took place in some underdeveloped countries and were called coups. They took place mainly in African and Latin American countries. At the same time, the main state bodies were seized by force. The current leaders of the state were removed from power. They could be eliminated physically or arrested. Some managed to hide in exile. The change of power happened quickly.

The legal procedures provided for this were ignored. Then the new self-appointed leader of the state addressed the people with an explanation of the lofty goals of the coup. In a matter of days, there was a change in the leadership of state bodies. Life in the country continued, but with its new leadership. Such revolutions are nothing new. Their essence is in the removal from power of those who are endowed with it, while the institutions of power themselves remain unchanged. Such were the numerous palace coups in the monarchies, the main instruments of which were the conspiracies of a narrow number of persons.

Quite often, coups took place with the participation of the armed forces and power structures. They were called the military, if the change of power was demanded by the army, which acted as the driving force behind the changes. At the same time, some high-ranking officers supported by a small part of the military could be the conspirators. Such coups were called coups, and the officers who seized power were called the junta. Usually the junta establishes a regime of military dictatorship. Sometimes the head of the junta reserves the functions of leadership of the armed forces, and its members occupy key positions in the state.

Some coups later led to a radical change in the socio-economic structure in the country and, in terms of their scale, took on a revolutionary character. The events that took place in the past century in some states, which were called coups, may have their own characteristics. Thus, political parties and public organizations. And the coup itself can be a means of usurping power by its executive branch, which assumes all power, including representative bodies.

Many political scientists believe that successful coups are the prerogative of economically backward and politically independent countries. This is facilitated by a high level of centralization of government.

How to build a new world

Sometimes a society finds itself in a situation where for its development it is necessary to carry out fundamental changes in it and break with the state that exists. The main thing here is a qualitative leap to ensure progress. We are talking about fundamental changes, and not about those where only political figures change. Such radical changes affecting the fundamental foundations of the state and society are called revolution.

Revolutions can lead to the replacement of one mode of economy and social life by others. Thus, as a result of bourgeois revolutions, the feudal way of life changed to capitalist. Socialist revolutions changed the capitalist way of life to the socialist one. National liberation revolutions liberated peoples from colonial dependence and contributed to the creation of independent national states. Political revolutions make it possible to move from totalitarian and authoritarian political regimes to democratic ones, etc. It is characteristic that revolutions are carried out in conditions where the legal system of the overthrown regime does not meet the requirements of revolutionary transformations.

Scientists who study revolutionary processes note several reasons for the emergence of revolutions.

• Part ruling plates they begin to believe that the head of state and his entourage have much greater powers and opportunities than representatives of other elite groups. As a result, the dissatisfied can stimulate the indignation of society and raise it to fight against the regime.
• Due to the decrease in the receipt of funds at the disposal of the state and elites, taxation is being tightened. The monetary content of the bureaucracy and the military is being reduced. On this basis, there is discontent and speeches of these categories of state workers.
• There is a growing resentment of the people, which is supported by the elites and is not always caused by poverty or social injustice. This is a consequence of the loss of position in society. The discontent of the people develops into a rebellion.
• An ideology is being formed that reflects the demands and moods of all strata of society. Regardless of its form, it raises people to fight against injustice and inequality. It serves as the ideological basis for the consolidation and mobilization of citizens who oppose this regime.
• International support, when foreign states refuse to support the ruling elite and begin cooperation with the opposition.

What are the differences

1. A coup in a state is a forceful replacement of its leadership, carried out by a group of people who have organized a conspiracy against it.
2. Revolution is a powerful multifaceted process of radical transformations in the life of society. As a result, the existing social system is destroyed and a new one is born.
3. The organizers of the coup aim to overthrow the leaders of the state, which happens quickly. Usually a coup does not have significant popular support. Revolution involves profound change operating system public administration and social order. The revolutionary process takes a long time, with a gradual increase in protest moods and the expansion of mass participation. Often led by Political Party, not having the opportunity to obtain power legally. This often ends in bloodshed and civil war.
4. A coup usually does not have an ideology that guides its participants. The revolution is carried out under the influence of class ideology, which changes the consciousness of a significant part of the people.

However, in political history the concept of "revolution" is applied to large-scale and prolonged processes(“a deep qualitative change in the development of any phenomena of nature, society or knowledge”), while the “revolution” is applied to event a change of power, the consequences of which are not necessarily revolutionary in their scope. A similar relationship between "coup" and "revolution" is observed in a pair of terms: "Industrial Revolution - Industrial Revolution".

Conditions for a successful coup

The American political scientist and historian Edward Luttwak, in his classic book The Coup d'état, identifies three essential conditions for a successful coup d'état:

Typology

Palace coups

In addition to the events best known from the so-called era of palace revolutions in the history of Russia, palace revolutions have taken place in the history of other countries - for example, the Palace Revolution in Romania (1866). hallmark palace coups is the mandatory removal from power of a person endowed with this power formally or informally, despite the fact that the very institutions of power in the country remain largely unchanged. Palace coups are organized by conspiracies, in which a limited number of people who support the applicant for the corresponding post participate.

Revolutionary upheavals

The largest in terms of their scale, social consequences and the degree of involvement of the masses in political processes were

• The Dutch revolution is an uprising of the population of the Northern provinces against the rule of the Spanish empire. It led to the formation in Europe of a new state with an officially republican form of government - the Dutch Republic. The success of the uprising and the new kind of political and economic relations in the Republic became an example for the rest of the nations of Europe.
• The English Revolution is a kind of consequence of the revolution in the Netherlands. As a result of the revolution, a new form of government for Europe arose - the Constitutional Monarchy.
• French Revolution, which began with the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789 and led to the overthrow of the Old Order, the liquidation of the monarchy in France and the establishment of a republic. At the same time, the Thermidorian coup of July 27, 1794, which ended the French Revolution, is not currently regarded as a revolution, although it was proclaimed as such by the Thermidorian leaders.
• The February Revolution in Russia, which also led to the liquidation of the monarchy in the country and the creation of the Russian Republic on September 14 (September 1).
• The October Revolution in Russia, which began with an armed uprising on October 25 (November 7) and led to the establishment of the Soviet Republic in Russia.

military coups

Armies (in certain cases, foreign), regular and irregular armed formations, including police, to one degree or another can be involved in coup d'état various types. However, this is not a sufficient basis for classifying the coup as a military one. Military coups are those in which

• a significant part of the army acts as an independent, and sometimes the only driving force that requires changes in power (for example, in the era of the “soldier emperors” of Ancient Rome 235-285)
• the minimum necessary part of the army is mobilized to support the conspiracy of a group of high-ranking military men who claim to usurp power in the country. Such a coup is often referred to as a putsch; a group that seizes power - a junta, and the regime it establishes - a military dictatorship.

The person who takes the place of the head of state as a result of a military coup is most often a military man. However, exceptions are possible: not all "soldier emperors" of Ancient Rome were military. The head of the junta may subsequently also assume the position of commander-in-chief of the armed forces. As a rule, members of the junta assume leadership of only the key links in the institutions of power in the country.

Modern specificity

AT modern era the planning and implementation of coups d'etat presupposes the consolidation of the social forces interested in them in parties and other forms of political organization. The choice of a coup as a tool for coming to power may be due to the lack of legal (that is, in accordance with applicable law) procedures. Elections may not exist at all or be virtually inaccessible: a party is banned, there are administrative barriers to elections, etc.

The usurpation by one branch of government (usually the executive branch) of all power in the country is also considered as a coup d'état - this means the termination of the activities of a body of representative power if it takes forms not provided for in the constitution of the state.

Ambiguities

In journalism or in order to emphasize negative emotional assessments, the terms "coup d'état", "coup", "junta", "mutiny" can sometimes be used in a figurative sense. When transferring back from foreign languages it should be borne in mind a fairly wide range of phenomena brought under the definition of English. and fr. coup d'état. Here sometimes coup d'état first of all, military coups are meant, in which they stand out as characteristics arrests and assassination attempts against former leaders. The lists of coups sometimes include episodes of the overthrow of ancient monarchs, which belong not to the domestic but to the foreign political context of the history of certain countries, reflecting the expansion of their rivals. Another expansion option coup d'état- a change in the party of power, achieved within the framework of constitutional norms, for example, through cabinet reshuffles (usually these cases are characterized by the more correct term English takeover "taking power").

Since independence in 1825, there have been about 200 coups in Bolivia. That is more than one coup per year.

Thirty-three African countries experienced 85 coups d'état between 1952 and 2000, of which forty-two took place in

In Russian, an illegitimate change of power can be described in different terms.

Academician Viktor Vinogradov, in his book The History of Words, argues that in the Russian literary language the word “revolution” in the meaning of a change of power began to be used from the end of the 18th century, when it semantically approached the French word révolution (“revolution, rotation” and at the same time “revolution, coup d'etat). As the scientist writes, it was especially widely used in the language of the Decembrists, who began to use the "coup" as a complete synonym for "revolution". The new meaning of the word was reflected in the Dictionary of the Russian Academy of 1822: “A coup is an unexpected and strong change in affairs and circumstances. The French coup shook the entire foundation of the state.

The very word "revolution" began to be widely used after the French Revolution of 1789. Although, according to some sources, the borrowing of this word came even earlier from the Polish language (rewolucja). In particular, it is mentioned in the documents of the well-known diplomat of the time of Peter the Great, Baron Pyotr Shafirov.

The word "rebellion" came to us from the Polish bunt ("mutiny, uprising"), which, in turn, goes back to the German Bund ("union"). For the first time it is mentioned in the Nikon Chronicle of the 16th century: "Aki in the ancient rebellion."

Another borrowed German term was "putsch" (Putsch), originating from the Swiss dialect and meaning "blow", "collision". The word began to be used after the Zurich Putsch of 1839, when peasant unrest led to the self-dissolution of the cantonal government. However, it became widespread only in the 20th century. In particular, the “beer putsch” in Germany in 1923 and the “August putsch” in the USSR in 1991 entered history.

Among those close in meaning to "coup" are the words "mutiny", "distemper", "uprising". With regard to the latter, the Brockhaus-Efron Dictionary notes that although the uprising "denotes active resistance to the established power, carried out en masse," it is not aimed at overthrowing it, but "aims to resist it in the person of its organs in a separate specific case."

Until the 19th century, the Old Slavonic word “sedition” was widely used, which was already mentioned in the letters of the 13th-14th centuries and defined by the dictionary of Pamva Berynda (1627) as “rozruh.” By its first meaning, this word of Turkic origin denotes a city square. However, after the events on Maidan Nezalezhnosti in Kyiv in 2004 and 2014, it is increasingly used as a synonym for the "color revolution".

What are coups

A coup is usually understood as a sharp change of power in a state in violation of existing legal norms and with the use or threat of violence.

In a narrow sense, coups include actions to seize power committed by a group of individuals within the ruling elites. For example, in the days of monarchies, palace coups were widespread, during which close associates overthrew the monarch. The period of Russian history of the 18th century between the death of Peter I and the accession to the throne of Catherine II even went down in history as the “epoch of palace coups”. Their later counterpart can be called party coups associated with reshuffles within the ruling party elite. In the 20th century, military coups were most widespread, during which a group of military personnel, usually of high rank, came to power in the country. The regime they establish is usually called a military dictatorship. There were especially many military coups in the second half of the century, mainly in the countries of Africa and Latin America.

A broader interpretation also includes revolutionary upheavals in which populace. They often end with a change in the political system.

A separate category is the so-called self-coups, which are understood as the usurpation of all powers in the country by one branch of government (usually the executive). Sometimes President Boris Yeltsin's actions to disperse the Supreme Soviet in 1993 are cited as an example of such a coup.

Finally, various hybrid forms of coups have been emerging recently. For example, the military who overthrew the ruler transfer power to the opposition or other representatives of the current government, or the military explain their actions by the implementation of the decision of the Parliament and the Supreme Court.

The specificity of the 21st century was the "color revolutions" in the post-Soviet space and the "Arab spring" in the Middle East and in North Africa as a result of which the opposition comes to power on the wave of popular protests. Most often, cases of a change of power as a result of a military invasion of external forces (for example, the operations of the international coalition in Iraq and Afghanistan in the 2000s) are not classified as coups.

Revolutionary tendencies

According to Kommersant's estimates, since the beginning of the 21st century, state leaders have been removed from power 38 times in an illegitimate or not entirely legitimate way.

Over the past 45 years, almost two hundred upheavals and revolutions have taken place in the world. If in 1970-1984 there were an average of six to seven cases per year, then in 1985-1999 - four, and since 2000 - an average of two per year. Among the fragile regions of the world, sub-Saharan Africa leads by a significant margin, accounting for almost half of all such incidents. Revolutionary activity in Latin America was on high level in the 1970s and early 1980s, but then faded away. The third place in Asia was largely provided by Thailand, which entered the top 5 countries where coups occurred most often. During the reporting period, there were seven of them, and since the beginning of the 1930s - 19. In addition, the last decades have been marked by the expansion of geography due to the inclusion of Oceania and the countries of the former USSR in the list.

As it turned out, in most cases of violent change of power, the military played a leading role. In addition, several other trends can be traced in the upheavals of recent decades. It is not uncommon for leaders who came to power as a result of a coup to subsequently repeat the fate of their predecessors. This is especially true in African countries. There are also cases when the leaders who seized power left and later returned to power in a democratic way. For example, Olusegun Obasanjo, who ruled Nigeria in the 1970s as a military dictator, was elected in legitimate elections in 1999. In 2006, he returned to power in Nicaragua former leader Sandinista National Liberation Front Daniel Ortega.

Many deposed leaders in their homeland are waiting for criminal prosecution. Sentences can be harsh, up to death penalty. The example of Egypt is notable for the fact that there are simultaneous trials against Hosni Mubarak, who was overthrown during the "Arab Spring", and his successor Mohammed Morsi. However, courts in such cases often take place in absentia, because the defendants have found asylum abroad. As practice shows, for most of the overthrown rulers, the decision to leave the country immediately after the overthrow turned out to be not an extra precautionary measure.

But the current heads of state should go abroad as rarely as possible, because putschists can take advantage of their absence. This mistake cost power to the leader of Mauritania, Ould Taye, who went to the funeral of the Saudi king, the head of the Central African Republic, Ange-Felix Patasse, who was absent for a summit of African states, and Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, who participated in the UN General Assembly in New York. Although there are doubts about the latter: a number of media reported that the prime minister knew about the impending coup and went on a foreign tour with 114 suitcases on board.

Ordered to set aside

The military often plays a critical role in changing power through unconstitutional means. Since 1970, they have led or taken part in more than 70% of all coups.

Most often, the highest-ranking military men become putschists. In particular, 45 generals were included in our rating. The highest rank among the conspirators was Field Marshal Tanom Kittikachon, who established the sole military rule in Thailand in 1971.

Military personnel of the middle and junior command staff are also prone to such adventures. We can recall, for example, Muammar Gaddafi, who led a military coup in Libya with the rank of captain, after which he was promoted to colonel and retained this rank for the rest of his life. Or Colonel Jean-Bedel Bokassu, who seized power in the Central African Republic and soon proclaimed himself emperor. Juntas of "black colonels" staged coups in Greece in the 1960s and Cyprus in the 1970s.

For almost half a century, there have been two coups organized by sergeants in the world. In 1980, a group of 16 military men led by Desi Bouters seized power in Suriname. These events went down in history as the "conspiracy of sergeants." That same year, Master Sergeant Samuel Doe seized power in Liberia in a bloody coup that killed President William Tolbert and executed members of the government. However, the conspirator did not remain a sergeant for long - having headed the Council of National Salvation, he made himself a general.

Authors-compilers of the guide: Anna Tokareva, Olga Shkurenko, Maxim Kovalsky
Photo: Reuters, AP, Kommersant, Zuma
Design and layout: Alexey Dubinin, Anton Zhukov, Alexey Shabrov, Korney Krongauz
Managing editor: Kirill Urban, Artem Galustyan