- Joined
- Mar 6, 2019
- Messages
- 26,069
- Reaction score
- 23,698
- Location
- PNW
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
As with other threads, I'll start with a definition to keep the discussion on track: Coup d'état: "a seizure and removal of a government and its powers. Typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a political faction, military, or a dictator." I'd like to keep it in the Loft, if possible, so keep the political snark to a minimum, please. My inspiration for the thread was actually something else in the news - Putin's saber-rattling about the anticipated invasion of Ukraine (Amid fears Russia will invade Ukraine, Putin points finger at U.S. and NATO in marathon news conference, WaPo), and the propaganda campaign he has begun at home to militarize the Russian population (How the Kremlin Is Militarizing Russian Society, NYT)
There has been considerable discussion on other threads (some I have started) about what happened on January 6, and how to categorize it. Those discussions will continue. In this thread, though, I want to focus on one particular concept and whether or how it applies to the current situation. A lot of ink (or pixels) has been devoted to describing what happened and concerns about recurrence. I'm going to post a lot of links to flesh the discussion out, because it is a discussion has been going hot and heavy in media and academia.
I start with Putin (Wikipedia) for a reason, and that is to discuss 1) how coups take place, and 2) how they are perpetuated. It is my assertion that Putin retained power in a coup, even though he was already in an elected position. That condition is important. Where I think his actions constitute "a coup" was with regard to "an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power". Putin originally assumed authority legally (at least superficially). "On 9 August 1999, Putin was appointed one of three First Deputy Prime Ministers, and later on that day, was appointed acting Prime Minister of the Government of the Russian Federation by President Yeltsin." Then, "On 31 December 1999, Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned and, according to the Constitution of Russia, Putin became Acting President of the Russian Federation." "Yeltsin's resignation resulted in the presidential elections being held within three months, on 26 March 2000; Putin won in the first round with 53% of the vote." That result was contested, and there is considerable evidence to support manipulation. He was re-elected in 2004. But, "Putin was barred from a third consecutive term by the Constitution. First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was elected his successor. In a power-switching operation on 8 May 2008, only a day after handing the presidency to Medvedev, Putin was appointed Prime Minister of Russia, maintaining his political dominance." (Emphasis mine) It was that power-shifting maneuver, and the subsequent meddling with the Constitution, that actually constituted "Putin's coup".
A coup attempt that fails is not, technically, a coup, because power doesn't shift. Among academics it is often argued that the usurping authority has to "hold power" for at least a week to have been considered "successful". It's also important to note that a coup does not require violence, although that is something that most coups involve. Often, though, the violence occurs after the shift in power, as the successful coup plotters consolidate their authority - eliminating competitors, intimidating or putting down resistance, taking over organs of communication, etc. There is also, frequently, an immediate or precipitous change to legal structures to "validate" their authority. At the same time, many failed attempts are merely precursors to subsequent, better planned and organized, efforts.
This is the ground upon which this thread is based. Next, I'll provide a bunch of citations to current discussions in the media.
There has been considerable discussion on other threads (some I have started) about what happened on January 6, and how to categorize it. Those discussions will continue. In this thread, though, I want to focus on one particular concept and whether or how it applies to the current situation. A lot of ink (or pixels) has been devoted to describing what happened and concerns about recurrence. I'm going to post a lot of links to flesh the discussion out, because it is a discussion has been going hot and heavy in media and academia.
I start with Putin (Wikipedia) for a reason, and that is to discuss 1) how coups take place, and 2) how they are perpetuated. It is my assertion that Putin retained power in a coup, even though he was already in an elected position. That condition is important. Where I think his actions constitute "a coup" was with regard to "an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power". Putin originally assumed authority legally (at least superficially). "On 9 August 1999, Putin was appointed one of three First Deputy Prime Ministers, and later on that day, was appointed acting Prime Minister of the Government of the Russian Federation by President Yeltsin." Then, "On 31 December 1999, Yeltsin unexpectedly resigned and, according to the Constitution of Russia, Putin became Acting President of the Russian Federation." "Yeltsin's resignation resulted in the presidential elections being held within three months, on 26 March 2000; Putin won in the first round with 53% of the vote." That result was contested, and there is considerable evidence to support manipulation. He was re-elected in 2004. But, "Putin was barred from a third consecutive term by the Constitution. First Deputy Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev was elected his successor. In a power-switching operation on 8 May 2008, only a day after handing the presidency to Medvedev, Putin was appointed Prime Minister of Russia, maintaining his political dominance." (Emphasis mine) It was that power-shifting maneuver, and the subsequent meddling with the Constitution, that actually constituted "Putin's coup".
A coup attempt that fails is not, technically, a coup, because power doesn't shift. Among academics it is often argued that the usurping authority has to "hold power" for at least a week to have been considered "successful". It's also important to note that a coup does not require violence, although that is something that most coups involve. Often, though, the violence occurs after the shift in power, as the successful coup plotters consolidate their authority - eliminating competitors, intimidating or putting down resistance, taking over organs of communication, etc. There is also, frequently, an immediate or precipitous change to legal structures to "validate" their authority. At the same time, many failed attempts are merely precursors to subsequent, better planned and organized, efforts.
This is the ground upon which this thread is based. Next, I'll provide a bunch of citations to current discussions in the media.
