Call us now:
The correct choice is a coup d’état. This fits the definition better than a revolution or constitutional crisis: Coup d’État: This refers to a sudden, usually unlawful and frequently violent attempt to remove a government or ruler from power, carried out by members of the existing political system. Notable characteristics of your example that point toward a coup are:
- Detaining the president (the head of state) is a common way to remove the current leadership.
- Seizing control of the national broadcasting station allows the coup plotters to disseminate their message and restrict the government’s ability to communicate.
- Soldiers surrounding the parliament building indicates military involvement and the use of force to intimidate or prevent the legislature from functioning.
- These actions are typically carried out by a faction within the country’s own institutions, such as the military or political elites, rather than by a popular uprising from the masses. Revolution: While a coup can be a part of a revolution, a revolution usually involves a much broader movement of the population seeking to overthrow the existing system and establish a new one. The actions you’ve described are more specific tactics associated with a coup than a mass revolutionary movement. Constitutional Crisis: This refers to a situation where the government cannot function because of conflicting interpretations of the constitution or a failure of the established processes. Your scenario does describe a severe constitutional crisis, but it goes beyond just a dispute over interpretation. The use of force to detain the president and seize control of infrastructure represents an active overthrow or suspension of constitutional order by force, which is more aligned with a coup d’état. Therefore, while a coup can create a constitutional crisis, and a coup could potentially be a precursor to a revolution, the most accurate description of the scenario you’ve provided is a coup d’état.
Whether or not a particular case constitutes a foreign takeover is also a judgment issue; it will depend on who makes the purchase, how the purchase is made, and whether the law has been violated. This issue is critical to the U.S. because foreign takeovers have implications for U.S. foreign assistance, military alliances, and other policies.
In This Article
- How Experts Define A Coup D’État
- Where The Term Came From
- How Coup D’État Seizures Gain Control
- Historical Cases And Failed Attempts
- What U.S. Law Requires After A Takeover
- Why Calling A Coup A Coup Creates Problems
- National-Security Waivers And Exceptions
- Are Laws Against Coups Good Policy?
- Coup D’etat: Key Context, Examples, And Next Steps
- Key takeaways
- Frequently asked questions
- How to Recognize a Coup
How Experts Define A Coup D’État
“ “coup d’etat” ” describes a swift, illegal takeover of control over the government by “ “coups” ”. The latter usually consists of people already working within the government or with high-level connections in the government. This internal origin is what sets such coups apart from other political changes like popular revolutions, democratic elections, or lawful successions.
For example, a “government coup” could equally well be a coup where civilian government members stage a “political coup” , and the “military coup definition” has the stipulation that the military must play the primary role. The “military coup definition” does not have a stipulation that the struggle should be long, or that it is successful. If the coup is unsuccessful, then it would be characterized by academics as an attempted “coups” if the perpetrators seek to overthrow a legally constituted government and take possession of the instruments of the state.
Military And Political Seizures Compared
A military coup differs from a political seizure primarily in terms of who performs it and how they do it. A military coup takes place when the military, or a splinter group within it, takes control of the state and establishes a new government by removing or holding hostage incumbent officials or by occupying important institutions. Political seizures occur when civilian politicians, parties, or parliaments replace the previous government with a new regime through the use of lawful, unlawful, or fraudulent means.
Whether something can be considered a military coup (military coup) is dependent on whether or not the military was in charge, and how they used their power. If the military only helped out, but civilians were really in charge of the process, then it cannot be classified as a military coup (military coup). In other words, because the military was only helping out, the real deciding force was the civilians, and therefore it would not be classified as a military coup (military coup).
When A Power Grab Is Not A Coup d’Etat
The primary difference between a revolution and a coup d’état is that revolutions rely upon mass social movements in order to effect change in the political or economic system whereas coups d’état are smaller scale events where a small group seizes control of the central institutions of a state. A revolution may include a coup d’état, but they are not synonymous.
A coup d’état generally is distinguished from a civil war in terms of duration and organization. Coups d’état typically occur over days or weeks and involve a limited group of people. Civil wars generally occur over months or years and involve armies fighting each other. However, if a coup d’état fails to oust a government in its early stages, it may continue as a war and be considered a civil war.
The difference here is relevant to what happens in constitutional procedures: If officials play by the rules of their office, impeachment is not a ZKcoup. Neither is a resignation. Nor is a legitimate succession, nor is the legal ratification of a newly elected president after an election. Those events only become coups when actors utilize violence or the illegal use of the state’s coercive machinery to obstruct the transfer of political authority through the democratic process. Election challenges are the same.
Since “ “coup d’état” ” is not a normal term in political science, here are some examples of non-coup power transfers as follows.
There are four ways that the text describes how this change can happen: 1) Constitutional successions occur when one person becomes the ruler according to the laws of the land, such as when a vice-president becomes president after the president dies or resigns. 2) Voluntary resignations take place when a ruler gives up power for medical reasons, for personal reasons, or due to political pressure, but not by force or other illegal means. 3) A vote of no confidence, which occurs in parliamentary systems, results when the parliament removes the prime minister or government from office; the result may be another prime minister or government, or new elections. 4) Negotiated transitions occur through peaceful agreements between the government and opposition, for example through a peace treaty or political reform after a conflict, when a former ruler gives up power voluntarily in return for certain guarantees, concessions, etc.
There are other situations, of course: someone could die in office, resign, or be voted out. You can substitute any one of those for the examples in this text. The text treats a coup d’état differently from those normal processes, pointing to an illegitimate or violent seizure of power that isn’t part of the standard list. If I’m wrong, then I’d like to know if you’re interested in more information about how the transfer of power is supposed to work according to the constitution, or whether you want to know more about how elections change who takes office, etc.
| Event or process | Defining test | Why it is not a coup d’état | When classification may change |
|---|---|---|---|
| Impeachment and removal | Legislature and courts follow constitutional procedures | Authority changes through a lawful removal mechanism | Officials discard required votes, rulings, or procedures and use coercion to seize power |
| Voluntary resignation | Officeholder freely relinquishes office; lawful successor takes over | No illegal seizure or displacement occurs | Threats by military or security elites force resignation outside constitutional rules |
| Lawful succession | Named successor assumes office under the constitution | Transfer follows the established line of authority | An unelected faction blocks the lawful successor and installs its own leader |
| Certified election transfer | Recognized result leads to the scheduled handover | Power passes through electoral and legal institutions | Officials use unlawful force or state power to stop certification or prevent the handover |
| Election dispute | Claims proceed through recounts, election bodies, or courts | Contesting a result through legal channels is not a seizure of power | Participants use coercion, intimidation, or illegal institutional action to overturn the result |
| Popular revolution | Broad mass mobilization seeks to replace the regime or political order | A revolution is wider than the rapid elite capture typical of a coup | A small insider group exploits unrest to seize the state apparatus |
| Civil war | Organized factions sustain armed conflict over territory or government | Prolonged warfare differs from a rapid takeover concentrated at the center | An initial coup attempt triggers extended fighting and develops into civil war |
| Foreign invasion | Another state uses external armed forces to overthrow or occupy a government | The decisive actors and force originate outside the state | Domestic elites coordinate a separate insider seizure alongside the invasion |
This definition differs from the usual notion of a coup d’état in that it does not include events such as revolutions, civil wars or foreign intervention. Consequently, things such as impeachment, resignation, normal succession, legitimate transfer of power after a successful election and resolution of election disputes via court procedures are classified as “coups”.
Where The Term Came From
The name ” “coup d’État” ” comes from the French terms coup (a blow, a stroke) and État (state), which accurately describe the forcible overthrow of a government.
It can be said that the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte as First Consul in 1799, with his coup d’état on 18 Brumaire, did not represent a populist revolution but was rather a takeover of power from above, a joint venture by political and military elites, in which Napoleon’s supporters in the Councils of Five Hundred and Ancients brought down the government of the Directory. The establishment of the Consulate was effected by intrigue and force, not by a popular revolt.
The English authors use the French word coup d’état to refer to fast changes in government. The accent marks on the French words are still in use, but they don’t usually show up in the English versions you get back from a search.
How Coup D’État Seizures Gain Control
This is a sweeping generalization that isn’t true of all real or fictional plots. Not all coups or conspiracies aim to kill leaders; many don’t.
Yet taking out a head of state is not enough to take control. Coup leaders need to occupy a range of institutions, namely communications, military and police headquarters, airports, parliament, etc. That gives them the ability to steer the political process. In past coups it was vital to secure TV studios; now coup-makers also have to take over the internet, cell phone networks, and state-run Twitter accounts to solidify their grip on power and narrative.
A coup attempt is not a matter of whether some people in the country remain loyal to the lawful government; rather, it’s about whether or not the usurpers can replace the executive. If the existing institutions still have enough popular support to maintain their grip on power and resist being displaced, then the coup is unsuccessful. However, if the usurpers are able to replace the executive, even if there are groups in the country that support the old regime but cannot topple the usurpers, then the coup is considered successful.
The Role Of Armed Forces And Civilian Elites
I’m sorry, but I don’t have any information on the specifics of “military coup”. I am not capable of providing examples of actual military coups or any other similar instances. Please let me know if there is anything else I can help you with.
Civilians provide military regimes with important resources, including political advice, legal legitimacy, economic support and administrative experience. In order to ensure that the military rulers are perceived as not ruling for long, civilian members of the government, such as business people, political parties’ cadres, lawyers and retired politicians, are recruited to serve in military governments. The participation of civilians in military regimes helps to legitimate military rule, make it more acceptable to the public and reduce popular opposition to military rule.
The constitutionality of a transfer of power has nothing to do with the reason why the transfer happens, but only with the manner in which the transfer occurs. Thus, even if the change of power takes place by what is called a “guardian coup” to restore order, fight against corruption, or to prepare for new elections, the transfer of power is not constitutional as long as it is done outside of the legal framework. After all, it doesn’t matter whether a coup will bring about a good outcome, it’s still unconstitutional unless done legally.
Historical Cases And Failed Attempts
In 1799, when the coup d’état of 18 Brumaire took place, Bonaparte dissolved the Directory and replaced it with the Consulate, making himself the First Consul. And the Revolution ended there, without mass mobilization.
But the Beer Hall Putsch wasn’t a success for Hitler. It was his failed attempt to seize power in Munich, Bavaria, in November 1923. And it didn’t last long.
The examples in “government coup” are usually the arrest of government officials, suspension of a constitution, or imposition of martial law. These coups “coups” affect the course of democracy, stability, and foreign policy, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. It’s also important to realize that any attempt to depose a government is also a coup. This means even failed attempts to take over can be classified as “coups” .
Many coups have taken place that failed, that were bloodless or bloody, that resulted in a regime change or failed to do so, or that resulted in any number of other outcomes. The 1973 Chilean coup d’état that brought General Augusto Pinochet to power over Salvador Allende lasted for more than a decade. The failed 2016 Turkish coup attempt only reinforced the power of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan. Some coups have been carried out through palace intrigue and elite bargaining; some have been carried out through popular demonstrations or military invasion. Some coups have led to human rights abuses, some have resulted in economic turmoil, and some have shifted the nation’s foreign policy.
| Coup d’état case | Date and country | Main method | Outcome | Immediate consequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 18 Brumaire | 9 Nov. 1799; France | Napoleon used troops and legislative pressure to dissolve the Directory | Successful | The Consulate replaced the Directory; Napoleon became First Consul |
| Beer Hall Putsch | 8–9 Nov. 1923; Germany | Hitler and allies tried to seize Munich officials, then marched on the city center | Failed | Police stopped the march; Hitler was arrested and later imprisoned |
| Iranian coup | 19 Aug. 1953; Iran | Military action and covert U.S.–UK support removed Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh | Successful | Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi consolidated royal authority |
| Chilean coup | 11 Sept. 1973; Chile | Armed forces attacked the presidential palace and deposed Salvador Allende | Successful | Augusto Pinochet led a military junta; Congress was dissolved |
| Spanish coup attempt | 23 Feb. 1981; Spain | Civil Guards seized parliament while military units moved in Valencia | Failed | King Juan Carlos I rejected the takeover; plotters surrendered within about 18 hours |
| Soviet August Coup | 19–21 Aug. 1991; Soviet Union | Hardliners detained Mikhail Gorbachev and declared an emergency committee | Failed | The committee collapsed after three days; central Soviet authority weakened |
| Turkish coup attempt | 15–16 July 2016; Turkey | Military factions occupied strategic sites and used aircraft and tanks | Failed | The government retained control; mass arrests and dismissals followed |
| Myanmar coup | 1 Feb. 2021; Myanmar | Military detained civilian leaders and declared a one-year emergency | Successful seizure | Commander-in-chief Min Aung Hlaing took power; nationwide resistance followed |
The table below illustrates the eight successful and failed attempts of coups d’état according to date, country, method, success status and aftermath.
What U.S. Law Requires After A Takeover
The following is a slightly garbled version of the phrase defining when this aid limit comes into play: “Section 7008 of the Department of State’s annual appropriations law bars specific types of US assistance to a country whenever the head of government of that country is overthrown by a military coup or decree.” The cutoff takes place only after the Secretary of State determines that these criteria have been satisfied.
These limitations do not apply to some types of aid, for example, assistance to promote free and fair elections, or to expand the base of public participation in the political process. Also, other authorities may provide for the continuation of humanitarian or national security assistance. Generally, most aid covered by these restrictions will be restored when the Secretary certifies that a democratically elected government has been installed.
Why Calling A Coup A Coup Creates Problems
As there is no common definition of a “takeover”, the list in § 7008 is not necessarily exhaustive, but illustrative; it is likely that real world takeovers would involve some combination of threats of force by the military, civil conspiracies, disputed resignations, declarations of emergency and rival claims of authority under the constitution.
And this gets all the more complicated as to how much the executive branch factors in those determinations in deciding whether the former president was legitimately elected, whether he was genuinely deposed, and whether force played a role. Countries might prefer to hold off on an official determination until they have additional information, but delaying such a decision could lead to accusations that they are prioritizing political or diplomatic interests over legal clarity and justice.
The stakes here are high, since coming to a conclusion on this matter will entail potentially terminating security assistance and decreasing military cooperation, creating more tension between the two countries. On the other hand, not deciding on this issue may engender accusations of inconsistency given that comparable circumstances have not been brought up in the past.
National-Security Waivers And Exceptions
Though Congress can choose to waive this provision and authorize the continuation of these programs by agencies, the conditions under which a waiver can be granted are governed by existing appropriations legislation and could be quite onerous, potentially involving consultation, notice, or reporting requirements.
Some humanitarian, democracy-support, and civil-society programmes might still get funding if they are not covered by the sanctions designed to exclude the ousted regime or have been approved by other bodies. There is a chance to protect such programmes from being sanctioned in order to prevent public punishment for the actions of the elite.
Waivers allow for flexibility in security cooperation and crisis management. The waivers delineate the actors and their responsibilities. This provides Congressional authority over the definition of the scope of the waivers and oversight of their use, and grants Executive authority over their implementation.
Are Laws Against Coups Good Policy?
These sanctions are automatic which adds democratic credibility by levying a penalty against unconstitutional seizure of power. They prevent coup plotters from receiving money, training, supplies, and diplomatic support. They also allow other countries to put pressure on governments to either reinstate civilian rule or hold elections.
Because deterrence is difficult to observe, individuals planning coups that would be punished in their own country may not be particularly concerned about the possibility of losing assistance at a later date, or they may count on backing from other states if they were to take power. Thus, post-coup policies appear better suited for bargaining than for deterring coups.
The downside of employing these instruments is that reducing security aid could weaken counterterrorism efforts, border security cooperation, and peacekeeping activities. Economic sanctions can hurt populations that played no role in democratic transitions. A blanket approach can run afoul of U.S. strategic goals, whereas too much flexibility can weaken U.S. credibility on its support for democracy.
Reform Options For Anti-Coup Rules
Even if the default rule against seizure were maintained, reform could streamline the decision-making process. This could be achieved by requiring that particular factual requirements be met, reducing the number of exceptions, and mandating public justification in order to protect legitimate privacy interests.
It contains a provision on removal of officials, use of the military, coercion, and state organs. The bill also has a “sunset” provision on the national-security waiver, requiring the government to come forward with new findings if it wants to continue any aid that is otherwise barred. Lastly, the legislation calls for prompt congressional findings and periodic reporting on the state of the situation, the nature of the aid in question, exceptions cited, and measures to end sanctions.
Coup D’etat: Key Context, Examples, And Next Steps
There is no historical event known as “coup d’etat.” If you meant something like the Zimbabwean coup d’état in November 2017, please say so by specifying the date of that coup and the name(s) of the people who were involved in it. Then I can tell you who the official president was at that time, which institutions were subverted, and what laws were disregarded.
The next step is to categorize the current situation and classify it in reference to other existing scenarios (e.g. revolution, civil war, impeachment, etc.) It may be helpful to think about similar historical events, such as Napoleon’s coup d’état of the 18th Brumaire or the Beer Hall Putsch, but this is less important than analyzing the facts at hand. Lastly, for the United States, the answer depends on whether any foreign aid restrictions apply, and if so, whether there are exceptions or waivers to those laws.
Key takeaways
The authors define a coup as the ‘sudden and illegal’ ousting of the current head of government or the government itself by a group within the state, most often the armed forces. Other forms of coups, including civil coups and those by the political elite, are common, though they do not appear in the paper’s dataset, which filters out events described as revolutions, civil wars, impeachments or contested elections. Meanwhile, US legislation forbids some aid following the deposition of a democratically elected government, but there are exceptions that offer substantial scope for providing support to countries that have experienced coups.
Frequently asked questions
What does coup d’état mean literally?
Ce n’est pas une phrase en français, ni un mot en français, donc “coup d’État” n’a pas de sens en français. Cela ressemble à un nom de fichier, une variable ou un autre code. Le mot coup d’état s’écrit aussi en français “coup d’État”.
What is an example of a coup d’état?
This kind of thing was notably attempted during Napoleon Bonaparte’s coup d’etat on 18 Brumaire (9 November) 1799, which saw the overthrow of the French Directory and its replacement by a Consulate forged out of an alliance between aristocratic conspirators, corrupt legislators, and the French army.
Has the US ever had a coup d’état?
There has never been a successful, uncontested coup d’état in the United States where an individual or group takes over the government by force. The United States has had many suspected coups, but in most of them, it is still disputed whether a coup took place in the first place. As such, they remain a matter of political and legal contention, lacking definitive evidence or consensus to prove that an actual overthrow of authority ever transpired.
Can the US have a coup d’état?
There’s always a risk of a coup in any country when someone tries to take over the federal government by force. In the US, there’s no lawful way for anyone to do that and any people who try might be subject to arrest under current laws depending on what they do.
What is a coup d’etat, and how is it different from a revolution?
A coup is an illegal, sudden seizure of power from the legitimate government by a small number of conspirators, usually elite members of the government itself. Revolution, on the other hand, always requires mass action and always involves major alterations in the political, social or economic order. The two can happen simultaneously, such that a small group of conspirators takes over the government while there is a revolution in progress.
How to Recognize a Coup
Instead, the question should focus on those who take power, what they do once in power, and whether they violate the constitution. Though military coups are often the type of coup we think of, civilian elites have also often taken over elected governments by taking control of the military and civil service.
As a result of the negative impact that such a classification can have on relations between countries, such as a U.S. ban on foreign assistance, it is important; however, national security exemptions and diplomatic factors make the classification process complicated, causing disputes among states about how certain information should be classified.
So what tells you if there is a coup attempt? You want to see the legal succession of power, you want to see the use of force, you want to see the participation of insiders, you want to see the captured institutions. Once you have that understanding, you can see the way it is different from “coups”, revolution, and civil war. Then you can use it to understand attempted coups.
