RSS feed for comments on this post.
The URI to TrackBack this entry is: http://poliblogger.com/wp-trackback.html?p=16272
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
0.621 Powered by Wordpress
Well put, Steven.
On the first of the “couple of other quick points,” throughout Latin American history the sort of action that deposed a president but kept to the electoral calendar has been very common. It is the sort of thing that Al Stepan has always referred to as the poder moderador (moderating power). But he would not try to parse it and say these were not coups–military coups–just because another civilian politician replaced the deposed president, and the next election happened on schedule. (As I have mentioned before, the work of Brian Loveman is also very relevant here.)
I think some people are trying to claim it was not a military coup because there is no military junta in place. But, in historical context, as well as plain definitions such as applied in the post above, one does not need a junta (and often has not had one) to have had a military coup.
The coup against Allende was actually really unusual in the extent of violence employed, the death of the president it was directed against, the radical nature of the new de-facto government’s measures against the political process, and the longevity of the post-coup regime. And, yes, the Chilean military declared that everything it did had been legal under the 1925 democratic constitution!
Events like the one in Honduras are many times more common than events like the one in Chile. And the term that defines them is coup. Military coup.
Comment by MSS — Wednesday, July 8, 2024 @ 5:34 pm
Good point–certainly there are plenty of examples in Argentina and Peru (and elsewhere) of the military basically saying, “sorry, not you” and then going back to civilian rule. I think that the interregnum here strikes me as being milder than even some of the historical examples that come to mind. Something to think about (for me, anyway).
Comment by Steven L. Taylor — Wednesday, July 8, 2024 @ 7:08 pm
Well, several of the coups I had in mind were in Brazil between 1945 and 1964 (also Peru and Argentina, as you mention, and elsewhere). And few resulted in the exile of the deposed president. And I would suggest that the shows of force on the streets that we have seen in Honduras would be a good deal less “mild” than in most of the examples I was thinking of.
Comment by MSS — Wednesday, July 8, 2024 @ 7:19 pm
A fair point as well, and certainly those who are describing Zelaya’s ouster as a blow against tyranny and for democracy are doing a rather good job of ignoring what has been going on.
Comment by Steven L. Taylor — Wednesday, July 8, 2024 @ 7:40 pm
What’s the definition of a “junta”–in poli-sci parlance, anyway? My prole dictionary says it’s the rule of a military or political group after taking power by force–which is Honduras’s exact situation today. Is the term “junta” not correct in an academic sense? (If not, I’d suggest using the term to stress the illegal nature of what happened.)
Interested in what you think. Thanks.
Comment by MIG — Wednesday, July 8, 2024 @ 10:15 pm
That is a good question. I understand a junta as a governing council of active-duty military officers, who assume the role of the executive and usually also the legislative branch (though not always the latter).
Sometimes there is a civilian-military junta, as after the Salvadoran coup of 1979. But that means still that there is an executive council that consists at least in part of military officers.
So, while I have argued all along–in numerous comments here and in several entries at Fruits & Votes, and elsewhere–that this event in Honduras was a military coup, I do not think the current de-facto governing situation qualifies as a military junta. There is a single executive official who is actually the constitutional civilian successor to the president–what makes it illegal is that the military, rather than the constitutional process–overthrew the rightful president. And, of course, the legislature still functions, at least formally.
Military coup, not military junta. At least for now.
Comment by MSS — Thursday, July 9, 2024 @ 11:44 am
[...] coup, notwithstanding that there is no military junta governing the country in the aftermath. At PoliBlog, a commenter asks what is the political science definition of a military junta, and why the current Honduran situation does not meet a dictionary definition of “he rule of [...]
Pingback by Fruits and Votes » Prof. Shugart's Blog » The definition of a military junta — Thursday, July 9, 2024 @ 11:47 am