Democratic institutions have been relying on key diplomacy to design or influence governments in weaker says, including by supporting or assisting regime change, with great-power rivalries once more at the center of international relations. These efforts, which are far from advancing politics worldwide, only serve to aggravate its flaws at a time when dictatorship is in decline.
Local army, whether internally or externally, continue to be the main forces behind regime change. In Pakistan, for instance, the military reasserted its standard supremacy over government in 2022, when it engineered the resignation of Imran Khan as perfect minister. In Bangladesh, the military just seized benefits of a violent student uprising to urge Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to escape the nation before establishing an interval civilian-led administration led by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.
However, frequently times, external forces are instrumental in influencing government change. Well, the procedures remain dark. Interventional powers can reasonably deny involvement, which makes independent analysts struggling to distinguish fact from fiction because strategic skullduggery often leaves any social fingerprints.
However, it is usually very easy to see where an additional power gets its liquidity. China, for instance, is the nation’s largest investing economy and standard creditor for developing countries. While the details of China’s payment agreements are far from open, there is no doubt that it attaches several strings to its financing, which increase its leverage over borrowers, perhaps actually driving them into sovereignty-eroding debt traps.
The United States, for its piece, dominates the global economic infrastructure, enjoys significant leverage over conventional lenders like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund, and issues the world’s major reserve currency. With these pulleys, it has substantial power to reward or punish states, including by imposing unpleasant economic sanctions.
The US has much been accused of aiding in rebellion or supporting foreign governments, including by meddling in primaries or supporting rebellion. Some claim that the US played a role in the recent destroy of Khan in Pakistan and Hasina in Bangladesh, but they have denied any involvement.
What is the question: What does a democracy like the US hope to achieve by promoting routine change? The answer may be lasting political breakthroughs, which often arrive in the wake of common uprisings. Alternatively, countries are likely to experience political instability, cultural condition, and economic disruption.
A more probable explanation is that Western powers are attempting to improve their own geopolitical and economic passions by supporting “friendly” systems and excluding “unfriendly” people. Although Western powers prefer that there is a pretence of democracy, the regimes ‘ democratic credentials ( or lack thereof ) seem to matter little in this situation.
This helps to explain why military takeovers are usually followed by elections or the assembly, as in Bangladesh, of a government with a human face: military leaders hope to boost the new government’s global legitimacy and, in many cases, maintain access to Western monetary assistance. After all, the US is required by law to stop providing aid to a nation following a coup. US President Joe Biden’s administration imposed stringent sanctions on Myanmar after the military junta’s rule was overthrown in 2021 and, later, began providing non-lethal aid to anti-junta forces.
However, US leaders make the best decision regarding which military takeovers to label as” coups.” The US resisted condemning about half of the more than 20 military coups or indirect takeovers that have occurred in the last 15 years because it thought the regime change would benefit its regional interests. In this sense, the US has often sacrificed democracy at the altar of geopolitics.
Elections alone, even if competitive, do not guarantee the popular willpower or adhering to constitutional laws, especially when the military is in charge. While the international community might view a civilian-led government positively, domestic legitimacy may well be lacking, even when the coup-makers shed their uniforms and rebrand themselves” civilian” leaders, as the Thai army chief did after seizing power in 2014.
Democracy is in retreat globally. Many people are enduring the erosion of their civil liberties and political rights. Even the world’s top democracies are suffering from bitterly polarized politics and low public trust in governments. And closed autocracies now outnumber liberal democracies. Western powers will only help this trend by tolerating or accepting military rule, even under a covert military regime. ©2024 Project Syndicate