On the eve of the next anniversary of the August putsch of the State Emergency Committee, we are publishing an essay by historian Oleg Nazarov about the genesis and consequences of coups d'etat, which, alas, are so rich in our history. By penetrating the fabric of the maturation and development of events that lead the country into a state of dangerous turbulence, useful lessons can be learned...

Lessons from the 17th century

The first coup in the history of Tsarist Russia was the overthrow of Fyodor II Godunov in June 1605. He ruled the country for a record short period of seven weeks. This now undeservedly forgotten event has not lost its relevance for understanding the nature of coups.

Many of the reasons for what happened lay in the reign of Boris Godunov. In 1598, he became the first tsar in the history of the country to be elected to the throne at the Zemsky Sobor. The innovation was forced: with the death of Fyodor I Ivanovich, the Rurik dynasty (that branch that came from Ivan Kalita) was interrupted.

“Honorable” Boris, who was the brother-in-law of the deceased monarch, gained the upper hand in a tough struggle for power with much more noble competitors (the Shuiskys, Romanovs, etc.) back in 1584, and since then he has led the state under the incapacitated Fedor.

After his death, Boris Godunov, who had turned into a political heavyweight, was chosen as tsar with the help of the dowager queen and patriarch Job (in 1589 he became the first Russian patriarch with the active support of Godunov).

Boris Godunov

Not all representatives of the political elite were happy with this turn of events: the “upstart” Godunov was envied and feared.

Boris turned out to be a progressive statesman who anticipated many of the undertakings of Peter the Great. He won access to the Baltic Sea from Sweden (lost in the Time of Troubles), sent young people to study in Europe, achieved the establishment of the patriarchate in Russia, strengthened the border and Moscow.

However, Tsar Boris was not lucky. The summer of 1601 turned out to be unusually cold. Heavy rains did not allow the bread to ripen. A terrible famine began. It lasted three years in a row, which had never happened before. The starving people ate bark, cats, dogs, and cannibalism began.

Godunov fought against adversity as best he could. He tried to occupy the beggars who filled Moscow with construction work. Organized the free distribution of grain from state storage facilities. But there was not enough bread for everyone. And the people involved in distributing it turned out to be dishonest.

In a crisis situation, people began to associate the causes of misfortunes with the personality of Godunov. They said that God is angry with Russia because the Russian people dared to do the unheard of - choosing a tsar!

V. Klyuchevsky wrote: “During the entire Time of Troubles, they could not get used to the idea of ​​an elected tsar; they thought that an elected king was not a king, that a real legitimate king could only be a natural-born, hereditary sovereign from the descendants of Kalita... An elected king was for her (the masses - Ed.) the same incongruity as an elected father, an elected mother.”

This was what the fugitive monk Grigory Otrepyev played on, who went to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and presented himself there as “the miracle of the saved Tsarevich Dmitry,” who actually died in Uglich on May 15, 1591.

The Polish gentry would have betrayed themselves if they had not taken the opportunity to do another dirty trick to their eastern neighbor.

Oath of False Dmitry I to the Polish King Sigismund III for the introduction of Catholicism in Russia. 1874

Yuri Mnishek and the Vishnevetskys assembled a detachment of three thousand for the Pretender who had secretly converted to Catholicism. King Sigismund III, without advertising his participation, so as not to break the truce agreement with the Moscow state, helped the fugitive with money and asked the Crimean Tatars to support the campaign against Moscow.

Polish services had to be paid for, and False Dmitry made extensive use of the only available resource - promises.

He promised, having become king, to divide the Smolensk and Seversky lands between Sigismund III and Mnishek. He undertook to marry Marina Mnishek, making her the Russian queen and hereditary ruler of the Novgorod and Pskov lands. He promised a lot of money and benefits to the Polish treasury and the participants in the campaign against Moscow. The issue of converting the Russian people to the Catholic faith was even discussed.

The initial stage of the campaign against Moscow was unsuccessful for Otrepyev. However, inferior to the troops loyal to Godunov in the military confrontation, the Pretender so assertively and skillfully waged an information-psychological war that his experience can be studied by political strategists.

“Son of Ivan IV” inundated future subjects with messages, presenting Godunov as a traitor and usurper and defending his “legitimate right” to the “father’s throne.” And many believed him! The success was facilitated by long-circulating rumors that the youngest son of Ivan the Terrible had escaped, and hunger and adversity made people susceptible to manipulation of consciousness.

“The reasons for supporting the self-proclaimed prince could be very different, but real strength was given to him only by people’s conviction in his “naturalness”,” says biographer of False Dmitry I V. Kozlyakov.

Sergei Ivanov, “In the Time of Troubles”, 1908. By the way, inDuring the Time of Troubles, 50 thousand Cossacks took part in the Polish intervention in Russia...

Godunov gathered a large army and moved it against the Pretender, who had settled in the border town of Putivl. It seemed that Otrepiev’s days were numbered. Many supporters of False Dmitry lost faith in the success of the venture, and J. Mniszek and some of the Poles returned home.

But fate smiled widely at Otrepyev: in April 1605, Tsar Boris suddenly died.

The throne was inherited by sixteen-year-old Fyodor Borisovich. He was young and inexperienced, counting on the help of his relatives. And she immediately did him a disservice. While Fyodor was holding funeral services for his deceased father, Semyon Godunov took over to govern the state. It was he who made the fatal decision, appointing his son-in-law, Prince Telyatevsky, to command the Sentry Regiment. This appointment stirred up local disputes and quarreled the royal governors.

Considering himself undeservedly neglected, P. Basmanov, who successfully repelled the onslaught of False Dmitry’s troops near Novgorod-Seversky and was favored by Tsar Boris, went over to the Pretender (he became False Dmitry’s closest adviser and died with him on the same day).

Basmanov's example turned out to be contagious. The political elite split. The princes and boyars, who for years hid their anger and hatred towards the “artistic” Boris, gave free rein to a feeling of revenge. Seeing his son on the throne was beyond their strength. The son had to answer for his father.

Representatives of noble Moscow families who defected to the Pretender became “the retinue playing the king.” In the conditions of a split in the elite and the absence of firm leadership, the tsarist army did not last long. Just like in 1917, it sold out. False Dmitry's movement towards Moscow became his triumph.

Muscovites, not all of whom were dissatisfied with the rule of the Godunovs, froze in anxious anticipation. But it was necessary to act. However, at a critical moment, there was no intelligent and energetic person in the young king’s entourage who could rally the supporters of the ruling dynasty and organize a rebuff to the Pretender.

All these circumstances created fertile ground for the successful completion of the coup.

Connivance with the “orange threat” led to the fact that the emissaries of the Pretender N. Pleshcheev and G. Pushkin entered Moscow on June 1, which, according to the Dutchman I. Massa, “was truly a daring event.”

Agents of Dmitry the Pretender kill Fyodor Godunov. 1862

From Lobnoye Mesto on Red Square, G. Pushkin read the message of the “true Tsar” to the people. And he, having outlined the story of his “miraculous salvation” with the words “the merciful God, the great sovereign, sheltered us from villainous intentions,” branded the Godunovs.

False Dmitry promised everyone everything at once: the boyars - "honor and promotion", the nobles and clerks - the royal favor, the merchants - a reduction in duties and taxes, and the common people - "peace" and a "prosperous life." The letter ended with a call to “beat” Tsar Dmitry Ivanovich.

When the tsar's servants finally made an attempt to capture the agitators, the situation was already out of the Kremlin's control. In such cases, delay is like death. This is what the Godunovs were convinced of.

Supporters of the Pretender cleverly directed the anger of the rebellious people. On the same day, Fedor II, his mother and sister were arrested.

The Pretender did not need the deposed monarch alive. A few days later, the princes V. Golitsyn and V. Rubets-Mosalsky and their henchmen dealt with the son and widow of Boris Godunov with their own hands.

And the people were informed that Tsar Fedor and Tsarina Maria had poisoned themselves. The term “apoplexy” was not yet in use...

Contemporaries reacted with sympathy to the victims of the coup. The English diplomat compared Fedor with Hamlet.

The overthrow of the legitimate and innocent Fedor II played a negative role in the history of the country, becoming the first act of the Time of Troubles.

The Troubles brought Russia economic collapse, population decline and global social cataclysms, which brought the Moscow state to the brink of collapse and loss of independence.

It took many decades to heal the wounds received at the dawn of the “rebellious age.” It was possible to return Smolensk captured by the Poles only after 56 years, and access to the Baltic Sea - after 100 years.

Lessons from the 18th century

It is no coincidence that the series of violent changes in power in the period from 1725 to 1762 was called the “era of palace coups.” All of them were of a “top” nature, leading only to some rotation of the political elite and did not greatly influence the life of the tax-paying strata of Russian society.

Sometimes a change in the reigning persona resulted in a change in the foreign policy course of the empire. However, there is an opinion that in autocratic Russia, unlike states with a democratic political system, public opinion was expressed through palace and coups d'etat.

Elizaveta Petrovna Romanova

In the cases of the accession to the throne of Elizabeth Petrovna in 1741 and Catherine II in 1762, this took place.

On December 25, 1761, Elizaveta Petrovna died. The throne was inherited by her nephew from the Holstein dynasty, Peter III (Karl Peter Ulrich).

During the days of mourning for Elizabeth, to whom Peter owed literally everything, he behaved ridiculously: he made faces, chatted with ladies-in-waiting, imitated the priests, and abused alcohol. Further more. Society was agitated by rumors about the emperor’s intentions to replace Orthodoxy with Protestantism, and the Russian guards with Holsteins.

Peter III idolized the Prussian king Frederick II.

His ostentatious Prussophilia offended Russian patriots. They condemned the return to Prussia of all Prussian lands conquered during the Seven Years' War and the treaty of alliance concluded with it.

Peter III

Since childhood, obsessed with the idea of ​​returning the part of the Holstein duchy captured by Denmark, the emperor set out to start a war with it. He seemed not to understand that there was no one in Russia willing to shed blood for such an extravagant idea.

His relationship with his wife was also on the verge of breaking. On May 24, 1762, Peter, who did not hide his connection with Elizaveta Vorontsova, publicly called Catherine a fool. Rumors spread throughout the capital that a cell had already been prepared for the Empress in the Shlisselburg Fortress.

During six months of incompetent rule, Peter III turned almost the entire elite against himself - senators, military men, nobles, courtiers and even guards, whom he called Janissaries, bullied and was going to send to fight with Denmark.

The grandson of Peter I did not like Russia. As V. Klyuchevsky wrote, he “was afraid of everything in Russia, called it a damned country and himself expressed the conviction that he would certainly have to die in it, but he did not try at all to get used to it and get closer to it, did not recognize anything in it and was alienated from everything; she frightened him, the way children are frightened when left alone in a vast empty room.”

The Empress personally appeared at the barracks of the Izmailovsky regiment, which was commanded by one of the conspirators, Count K. Razumovsky. The regiment expressed complete devotion to Catherine. The Semenovsky and Preobrazhensky regiments and the Horse Guards did the same.

In a matter of hours, the guard violated their oath to the rightful monarch. The fifteen hundred “loyal Holsteins” guarding him did not help the emperor either. They were quickly disarmed and sent back to their homeland by sea.

The unpopular emperor did not have the determination and ability to fight for power. “Peter III was forced to sign an abdication of the throne, which turned into a death sentence for him,” stated the French writer A. Custine.

Although the legitimate monarch lost his throne, the coup d'etat was joyfully greeted by Russian society.

Lessons from the 20th century

In the twentieth century, the framework of coups d'etat no longer suited political actors. From now on, the change of power led to truly revolutionary changes, in which broad sections of the country's population took part.

Such large-scale upheavals were caused by a whole complex of various reasons. Let us reproduce the historical background against which the February Revolution of 1917 took place.

The third year was a difficult and bloody war.

It became obvious that a significant part of the population had a vague idea of ​​the goals of the war into which, contrary to the warnings of P. Stolypin, Nicholas II and his ministers had so imprudently plunged Russia. They were unable to draw conclusions from the defeat in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904–1905.

The peasant reasoned simply: why give his life for some straits if they do not add land to him?

The industry of Tsarist Russia was gradually rebuilt on a war footing. However, the growth of military production was achieved mainly at the expense of peaceful industries. The one-sided development of industry led to an increase in the shortage of consumer goods.

The peasants, not receiving them, were in no hurry to take the products to the market. At the end of 1916, the tsarist government took an emergency measure - the introduction of surplus appropriation in 31 provinces.

The hardships and deprivations of an unpopular war became the reasons for mass desertion at the front and the growth of protest sentiments in the rear.

February revolution. Soldier demonstration in Petrograd in February days

The opposition press did not calm, but inflamed passions. On February 11, 1917, the cadet “Rech” wrote: “The food crisis in Petrograd has become extremely worse. Many necessary products are either not available at all or are available in insufficient quantities.”

Problems with transport, which could not cope with the delivery of food to the capital, and sharp speeches by State Duma deputies demanding the creation of a government responsible to them, brought Russia to the brink of revolution.

In February 1917, this border was crossed by the collective efforts of dignitaries, deputies and generals who had lost faith in the Tsar and embarked on the path of a coup d'etat.

I will emphasize some circumstances that Nicholas II summed up immediately after his abdication with the words:

The Emperor was betrayed by people he had known for decades, including some members of the Romanov dynasty.

At the height of the war, the military elite of Tsarist Russia was included in the conspiracy - the chief of staff of the Supreme Commander-in-Chief, General M. Alekseev, the commander-in-chief of the Northern Front, General N. Ruzsky, and other military leaders.

Russia's Entente allies were also privy to the plans of the conspirators. On the eve of the revolution, members of the opposition Progressive Bloc (P. Milyukov, A. Shingarev, etc.) visited the West.

Miliukov (he was perceived as one of the future leaders of Russia) met with French President R. Poincaré, French Prime Minister A. Briand, British Prime Minister O. Asquith, the kings of England, Sweden and Norway, politicians, military men, bankers, and industrialists.

From January 19 to February 7, 1917, a conference was held in Petrograd with the participation of England, France, Italy and Russia. Its official purpose was to coordinate the actions of the Allied powers against Germany. Russia wanted additional funds from the allies for the needs of the front.

The allies' visit also had an important unofficial purpose. The new Prime Minister of England, D. Lloyd George, recalled: “In some circles there were bright hopes that the Union Conference could lead to some kind of agreement that would help expel Nicholas and his wife from Russia and entrust the government of the country to the regent.”

The head of the British delegation, Lord A. Milner, was an adherent of the strategy of spreading British rule throughout the world. With aplomb and impudence, Milner presented Nicholas II with a secret note with the wish, “without regard to official traditions,” to appoint representatives of the pro-English opposition to the most important posts in the government. There was also a demand to update the command staff of the army in agreement with the Entente.

The impudent lord transparently hinted to the tsar that if he refused, Russia might have difficulties, including with the supply of military materials from England.

Nicholas II did not succumb to the blackmail of his allies and ignored their “advice”...

Milner met with the leaders of the parliamentary opposition P. Milyukov, A. Guchkov, G. Lvov, M. Chelnokov and the former Russian Foreign Minister S. Sazonov, whom the British were eager to see at the head of the Russian government.

Consul General R. Lockhart, who was close to Milner, and other agents of the British intelligence services intensified their activities. Other members of the large Allied delegation were not idle either.

The atmosphere in society was already pre-storm. It’s amazing, but true: during 2.5 years of war, the tsar appointed four ministers of war, replaced four chairmen of the Council of Ministers, six ministers of internal affairs, and three ministers of foreign affairs. This personnel policy only stimulated the activity of the conspirators.

Deputies of the Supreme Council staged a political performance. They did everything to prevent a widespread popular uprising in the country, to localize events in the center of Moscow, where they were doomed in advance to the outcome desired by the presidential clique. They betrayed those volunteers who actually rebelled...

happened n the combination of two different and even hostile phenomena, namely the struggle of factions in the system of power and the popular uprising».

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'etat. Discussions on this matter continue to this day. This article is intended to help understand the problem.

If there is 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 government bodies were seized by force. The current leaders of the state were removed from power. They could be physically eliminated or arrested. Some managed to escape into exile. The change of power happened quickly.

The legal procedures provided for this were ignored. Then the new self-appointed head of 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 government bodies. Life in the country continued, but under its new leadership. Such revolutions are nothing new. Their essence is in removing from power those who are endowed with it, while the institutions of power themselves remain unchanged. Such were the numerous palace coups in monarchies, the main instruments of which were conspiracies of a narrow number of individuals.

Often coups occurred with the participation of the armed forces and security forces. They were called military if changes in power were demanded by the army, which acted as the driving force behind the changes. In this case, the conspirators could be some high-ranking officers, supported by a small part of the military. Such coups were called putsches, and the officers who seized power were called juntas. Typically, a junta establishes a military dictatorship. Sometimes the head of the junta retains the leadership of the armed forces, and its members occupy key positions in the state.

Some revolutions subsequently led to a radical change in the socio-economic structure of the country and took on a revolutionary nature in their scale. The events that took place in the last century in some states, which were called coups, may have their own characteristics. Thus, political parties and public organizations can be invited to participate in them. 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 d'etat are the prerogative of economically backward and politically independent countries. This is facilitated by the high level of centralization of government.

How to build a new world

Sometimes society finds itself in a situation where, for its development, it is necessary to make 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 usually called revolution.

Revolutions can lead to the replacement of one structure of the economy and social life by another. Thus, as a result of bourgeois revolutions, the feudal structure was changed to capitalist. Socialist revolutions changed the capitalist structure to a socialist one. National liberation revolutions liberated peoples from colonial dependence and contributed to the creation of independent nation 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 studying revolutionary processes note several reasons for the emergence of revolutions.

• Some of the ruling plates are beginning to believe that the head of state and his entourage have significantly greater powers and capabilities than representatives of other elite groups. As a result, the dissatisfied can stimulate public indignation and raise it to fight the regime.
• Due to the decrease in the flow of funds at the disposal of the state and elites, taxation is being tightened. The salary of officials and the military is decreasing. On this basis, dissatisfaction and protests by these categories of state workers arise.
• There is growing public resentment, supported by elites and not always caused by poverty or social injustice. This is a consequence of the loss of position in society. People's discontent develops into rebellion.
• An ideology is being formed that reflects the demands and sentiments of all segments of society. Regardless of its forms, it raises people to fight injustice and inequality. It serves as the ideological basis for the consolidation and mobilization of citizens opposing 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 changes 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. Typically, a coup does not have significant popular support. A revolution presupposes a profound change in the current system of government and social order. The revolutionary process takes a long time, with a gradual increase in protest sentiments and increased participation of the masses. Often it is headed by a political party that does not have the opportunity to gain power through legal means. This often ends in bloodshed and civil war.
4. A coup usually does not have an ideology guiding its participants. The revolution is carried out under the influence of class ideology, which changes the consciousness of a significant part of the people.

The fundamental difference between a coup and a revolution is that the latter is carried out as a result of protest actions (and in the interests) of a significant group of people, constituting a significant part of the country's population, and leads to a radical change in the political regime, which is not a prerequisite for a coup. In Russian, a number of foreign concepts are also used to denote this phenomenon:

Putsch(from German putsch) The German word “putsch” came into use after unsuccessful coup attempts in Germany (“Kapp Putsch” 1920 and “Beer Hall Putsch” by A. Hitler 1923). However, as researchers note, this concept carries a more negative evaluative nature and is applied mainly to attempts to seize power that are discredited in public opinion (for example, the State Emergency Committee in Russia).

Junta(from Spanish Junta collegium, association) a common designation for a military government that came to power as a result of a coup d'etat (for example, the Pinochet junta).

Even Aristotle in his Politics Using the example of ancient experience, he classified coups d'etat, noting that the purpose of such actions is usually either the overthrow of the existing constitution, or its partial change in the direction of strengthening or weakening the democratic system. He put forward the idea of ​​a certain middle social system - a polity, devoid of the extremes and shortcomings of democracy and oligarchy. In the Middle Ages, Niccolo Machiavelli analyzed the coup d'etat, however, unlike Aristotle, he viewed it purely utilitarianly as a special political technology that every ruler should know about. This perspective was developed by Gabriel Naudet, Richelieu’s librarian, who in his work Political considerations about the coup d'état(1639) for the first time introduced into scientific circulation the very concept of a coup d'etat (coup d'Etat). Considering the preparation of Catherine de' Medici for St. Bartholomew's Night (mass extermination of the Huguenots in 1572 in order to cleanse the royal court from the influence of the Reformation), Naude justified the right of the authorities to resort to violence in the event of necessity. In Russian history, in relation to the 18th century, the common term “era of palace coups” is used to designate the period from 1725 to 1762. In conditions of the concentration of absolute power at the royal court and the absence of adult direct heirs in the male line, a constant behind-the-scenes struggle between various groups took place in Russia influence among the aristocracy, giving rise to conspiracies and coups.The last major palace coup can be considered the murder on March 11, 1801 of Paul I, unpopular among the nobility, by a group of guards officers led by Count von Pahlen, who elevated Emperor Alexander I to the throne.

In modern times, the nature of coups d'etat has undergone some changes. The coup of 18 Brumaire 1799 is considered classic, when Napoleon Bonaparte overthrew the Directory and came to power at the head of a provisional government. Changes in the constitution and political system are carried out while maintaining the old legal forms or gradually creating a new parallel constitution. There is even such a term as “ creeping coup d'etat“, when an illegitimate change of power does not occur overnight, but according to a scenario extended over time, as a result of multi-step political machinations. In any case, the goal of legitimizing the new government is achieved, which is trying in every possible way to disavow accusations of usurpation and present itself as a defender of “true” democracy against its enemies.

In the 20th century the theory of “coup d’état” was considered in the works of the classics of Marxism-Leninism, becoming part of their revolutionary strategy. The greatest contribution to the comparative historical study of coup technology was made by the Italian Curzio Malaparte in his book (1931). In it, he proves that in modern mass society, in conditions of social crisis, the complex bureaucratic infrastructure of public administration simplifies the seizure of power by a political minority with the skillful use of special coup technology.

In the modern world, the so-called “banana republics” - small and, as a rule, corrupt, economically underdeveloped states of Latin America and Africa - have become especially famous for the instability of their political regimes and numerous successful and unsuccessful coup attempts. Military coups have even become a kind of business for some companies engaged in the recruitment of mercenaries who sell their services to warring parties in hot spots of the world (for example, only in 2004 there were two attempted armed coups in the Republic of the Congo). Among modern heads of state, the longest-living ones who came to power as a result of a coup are President Muammar al-Gaddafi, who overthrew the monarchy in Libya (1969), and Pakistani President Pervez Musharaff, who removed Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif (1999). One of the last coups was a military coup in Mauritania in 2005, which removed the president, who in turn came to power illegally in 1984.

A coup d'etat or its attempt is an indicator of existing instability and distortions in the internal development of society. He talks about the weakness of democratic institutions and the underdevelopment of civil society, and the lack of functioning mechanisms for the transfer of power through legal means. In general, history shows that even a successful coup d'etat, as a rule, is fraught with long-term negative consequences for the entire society, is an artificial attempt to overtake or slow down the evolutionary development of the country and often leads to casualties and repression, as well as a boycott by the world community.

see also THE FRENCH REVOLUTION; THIRD JUNE MONARCHY; REVOLUTION OF 19051907 IN RUSSIA; OCTOBER REVOLUTION (1917).

Aristotle. Policy. In collection op. in 4 vols., vol. 4. M., 1983
Malaparte Curzio. Coup technique M., AGRAF, 1988
Medushevsky A. How to teach democracy to defend itself... Bulletin of Europe, 2002, No. 4

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 scope. A similar relationship between “coup” and “revolution” is observed in a pair of terms: “Industrial Revolution - Industrial Revolution”.

Conditions for a successful coup

Typology

Palace coups

In addition to the events most famous from the so-called era of palace coups in the history of Russia, palace coups took place in the history of other countries - for example, the Palace coup in Romania (1866). A distinctive feature of palace coups is the mandatory removal from power of a person vested with this power formally or informally, despite the fact that the institutions of power in the country themselves remain largely unchanged. Palace coups are organized through conspiracies, in which a limited number of people supporting the candidate for the relevant post participate.

Revolutionary coups

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

• The Dutch Revolution was a revolt of the population of the Northern Provinces against the rule of the Spanish Empire. 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 type of political-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 - Constitutional monarchy.
• French Revolution, which began with the storming of the Bastille on July 14, 1789 and led to the overthrow of the Ancien Regime, the abolition of the monarchy in France and the establishment of a republic. At the same time, the Thermidorian coup of July 27, 1794, which completed the French Revolution, is currently not considered as a revolution, although it was proclaimed as such by the Thermidorian leaders.
• The February Revolution in Russia, which also led to the abolition of the monarchy in the country and the creation of the Russian Republic on September 1 (14).
• 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.
• The November Revolution in November 1918 in the German Empire, which also led to the overthrow of the monarchy and the establishment of a regime of parliamentary democracy known as the Weimar Republic.

Military coups

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

• a significant part of the army acts as an independent, and sometimes the only driving force requiring 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 officers who claim to usurp power in the country. Such a coup is often called a putsch; the group that seizes power is a junta, and the regime it establishes is a military dictatorship.

The person who occupies the position of 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 men. The head of the junta can subsequently also assume the post of Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces. As a rule, members of the junta assume leadership only of key parts of the institutions of power in the country.

Examples of military coups in modern times include the 1926 coup in Portugal, the 1967 coup in Greece, the 1973 coup in Chile, and the 1977 coup in Pakistan.

Modern specifics

In the modern era, planning and carrying out coups d'etat involves the consolidation of social forces interested in them into 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 current legislation) procedures. Elections may be absent altogether or virtually inaccessible: a party is banned, there are administrative barriers to elections, etc.

The usurpation by one branch of government (usually the executive) of all power in the country is also considered a coup d'etat - 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 for the purpose of emphasizing negative emotional assessments, the terms “coup d’etat”, “putsch”, “junta”, “rebellion” can sometimes be used in a figurative sense. When back-translating from foreign languages, one should keep in mind a fairly wide range of phenomena that fall under the definition of English. and fr. coup d'état. Here sometimes coup d'état This refers primarily to military coups, in which arrests and assassination attempts against former leaders stand out as characteristic features. 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 option for an expansive interpretation coup d'état- a change of party in power, achieved within the framework of constitutional norms, for example, through cabinet reshuffles (usually these cases are characterized by the more correct English term takeover “taking over power”).

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

In thirty-three African countries in 1952-2000, there were 85 coups d'etat, of which forty-two were in

Coup d'etat

COUP D'ETAIL

(coup d\"état) A sudden, violent, and illegal removal of government, usually by the military; It is often preceded by long-term 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 members of the middle class, sympathetic politicians, parties and professional groups, say, peasant associations and trade unions). A coup d'état focuses on repairing military damage, so it usually does not lead to large-scale changes in the social order. More often, a coup d'état is presented as an effective means of preventing revolutionary changes from below by introducing some changes from above. However, military intervention rarely contributes to solving the accumulated socio-economic problems. It would be wrong to say that coups d'etat do not occur in advanced industrial countries, but they are extremely rare where the government, regardless of its popularity, exists on a legitimate basis and where regular and organized changes of administration are widely practiced. In Europe, cases of military intervention were provoked 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 prerequisite for membership, is also seen as a stabilizing factor. Moreover, here the military has constitutional means at its disposal to defend its corporate and professional interests. However, in developing and underdeveloped countries, military intervention in politics was common until the 1980s. The nature and frequency of coups d'état vary by country and specific conditions. Latin America has the most "rich" since the birth of the republics; experience of military intervention in politics; They also happened in such relatively developed countries as Brazil, Chile and Argentina. In post-independence African countries, in the absence of a system of free and regular elections, and in an environment where governments are largely personalized, have limited power and have virtually no legal basis, coups d'état have quickly become a common means of replacing them. There are several different but related theoretical schools that study the nature and causes of coups d'état. Some try to explain them by social upheaval, economic decline, and political and institutional failures. According to this view, military intervention in politics stems from its response to intense social and political unrest in a society with little or minimal political culture. The military acts almost "in absentia", filling the vacuum of central power. Other researchers seek explanations for military intervention in politics in the military's organizational advantages (discipline, centralized command structure, cohesion) compared to civilian institutions in underdeveloped countries. In their view, interference in politics was likely born out of deep disillusionment with the civilian leadership, caused by its incompetence and corruption. Some focus primarily on the internal politics of the military, insisting that coups inspired by personal ambition, corporate interests, electoral rivalries and often violent expressions of ethnic and group loyalties are more or less random. At the same time, the emergence in Latin America in the 1960s–80s. authoritarian military regimes are attributed to a failed model of economic development based on the idea of ​​replacing imported goods with domestic goods and the need to attract large foreign investments to rebuild an export-based economy. The military was determined to remain in power to rebuild society and create favorable conditions for foreign investors. It is doubtful whether the complex and variable phenomenon in question can be explained by one or more variable factors. Meanwhile, military regimes themselves are increasingly concerned about how to exit the scene; how to step away from control without causing a new coup. Since the 1980s the situation has become even more aggravated due to the debt crisis and the tightening demands of creditor states to establish effective governance. International monetary organizations also began to press for the creation of multiparty democracy as a condition for continued aid. As a consequence of this, the number of military coup attempts in Third World countries has sharply decreased. This trend is especially noticeable in Latin America, but in other regions the military leadership continues to resist demands to give up power. But for example, in Ghana, the military agreed to hold elections and were again in power.

Policy. Dictionary. - M.: "INFRA-M", Publishing House "Ves Mir". D. Underhill, S. Barrett, P. Burnell, P. Burnham, etc. General editor: Doctor of Economics. Osadchaya I.M.. 2001 .

Coup d'etat

violent overthrow or change of the constitutional (state) system, committed in violation of the constitution, seizure of state power. If a coup d'etat is carried out with the decisive participation of the army, it is called a military coup. A coup d'etat is a sudden, illegitimate change of government undertaken by an organized group to remove the legitimate government. The difference between a coup and a revolution is that a revolution is carried out as a result of protest actions in the interests of a significant group of the population, and leads to a radical change in the political regime. The term “coup d’état” (coup d’Etat) was first coined by Gabriel Naudet (librarian to Cardinal Richelieu) in his work “Political Considerations on a Coup d’Etat” (1639). Describing the events of St. Bartholomew's Night (1572), he justified the authorities' right to resort to violence. In Russian history, the period from 1725 to 1762 is called the “era of palace coups.” The last palace coup can be considered the murder of Emperor Paul I Petrovich, unpopular among the nobles, on March 11, 1801, by a group of guards officers who brought Alexander I Pavlovich to power. In modern times, Napoleon Bonaparte's overthrow of the power of the Directory on the 18th Brumaire of 1799 is considered a classic example of a coup d'etat. Bonaparte carried out changes in the constitution and political system while maintaining the old republican legal forms, and then discarded them, ultimately establishing a regime of monarchical rule. The term “creeping coup d’etat” means that an illegitimate change of power does not occur immediately, but according to a plan extended over time, as a result of multi-step political combinations. At the same time, the goal of legitimizing the government is achieved, which denies accusations of usurpation and presents itself as a defender of the constitutional order. In the 20th century, the theory of a “coup d’etat” became part of the revolutionary strategy of the followers of Marxism-Leninism. A comparative historical study of the coup d'etat was carried out by the Italian Curzio Malaparte in the book “Technique of the Coup d'Etat” (1931). He argued that in mass society, in conditions of social crisis, the complex bureaucratic infrastructure of public administration simplifies the seizure of power by a political minority with the skillful use of special coup technology.

Political Science: Dictionary-Reference Book. comp. Prof. Science Sanzharevsky I.I.. 2010 .

Political science. Dictionary. - RSU. V.N. Konovalov. 2010.

See what a “coup d’état” is in other dictionaries:

COUP D'ETAT, in constitutional law, a violent overthrow or change of the constitutional (state) system, committed in violation of the constitution (see CONSTITUTION (fundamental law)), the seizure of state power. If… … encyclopedic Dictionary

COUP D'ETAIL Legal encyclopedia

Legal dictionary

The query "palace coup" redirects here; see also other meanings. A coup d'etat is a change of power in the state, carried out necessarily in violation of the constitutional and legal norms currently in force, ... ... Wikipedia

See Coup... Encyclopedic Dictionary F.A. Brockhaus and I.A. Efron

Coup d'etat- (coup dtat), sudden removal, overthrow of the government, as a rule, with the participation of the army. The forces that have come to power can establish direct military action. board (military government) or support k.l. faction, instructing it to form a government (junta). In... Peoples and cultures

In the science of constitutional law, a violent overthrow or change of the constitutional (state) system, or the seizure (appropriation) of state power by anyone, committed in violation of the constitution. If G.p. takes place when... Encyclopedic Dictionary of Economics and Law

coup d'etat- in the science of constitutional law, a violent overthrow or change of the constitutional (state) system, or the seizure (appropriation) of state power by anyone, committed in violation of the constitution. If G.p. takes place when... Large legal dictionary

COUP D'ETAIL- violent overthrow or change of the constitutional (state) system, committed in violation of the constitution, or the seizure (appropriation) of state power by anyone... Political science: dictionary-reference book

Awarding the general... Wikipedia