Coup d’état describes the sudden and violent overthrow of a government, almost invariably by the military or with the help of the military. A coup d’état tends to occur during a period of social instability and political uncertainty, and is usually the work of right-wing elements determined to impose a social discipline and political order that is felt to be missing. It is distinguished from a revolution, which usually implies a major change in the social structure or political order. However, the prevailing atmosphere which can precede a coup can be the same one which would allow a revolution to succeed, as was seen in the Soviet Union in 1991.
Coups d’état replace only the ruling group, without necessarily altering the social context in which they rule. Sometimes the makers of the coup d’état return power to the politicians after a fairly short period, when they believe that their aims of stabilizing and ordering the political system have been achieved. This was true, for example, of the Greek junta and of various coups d’état in Africa and Latin America. More frequently, an initial promise to do so is reneged on.
The sociological conditions in which a successful coup d’état is possible are fairly specific, combining a widespread acceptance of the basic social order with great distrust of the ruling political groups. The tendency of the military to be involved in coups d’état stems from their virtual monopoly of coercive means and the way in which they are often seen as apolitical or even ‘above politics’. In less developed societies the military are also likely to have a near monopoly of technological and organizational skills.
Coups need to be distinguished from ‘putsches’, as well as from revolutions. A coup is carried out by people and bodies which were already part of the power structure, such as army officers, disaffected members of the cabinet or senior civil servants. A putsch is carried out by a small group of leaders, with some degree of mass following, from outside the existing power establishment. There are few famous examples among putsches, but Hitler’s abortive putsch in Munich in 1923, and perhaps Mussolini’s march on Rome, would qualify as such. It will succeed only if the body of the existing administration, police and military have lost confidence in their official leaders and are prepared to accept the outsiders as replacements without, however, accepting a genuinely revolutionary change in society. In this sense the Bolshevik take-over of Russia in October 1917 may more properly be called a putsch than either a revolution or a coup d’état.
This is the complete article, containing 431 words
(approx. 1 page at 300 words per page).
