Play

The Strauss–Howe generational theory, devised by William Strauss and Neil Howe, describes a theorized recurring generation cycle in American history and Western history. According to the theory, historical events are associated with recurring generational personas (archetypes). Each generational persona unleashes a new era (called a turning) lasting around 20–25 years, in which a new social, political, and economic climate (mood) exists. They are part of a larger cyclical “saeculum” (a long human life, which usually spans between 80 and 100 years, although some saecula have lasted longer). The theory states that a crisis recurs in American history after every saeculum, which is followed by a recovery (high). During this recovery, institutions and communitarian values are strong. Ultimately, succeeding generational archetypes attack and weaken institutions in the name of autonomy and individualism, which eventually creates a tumultuous political environment that ripens conditions for another crisis.^{[citation needed]}

Strauss and Howe laid the groundwork for their theory in their book Generations: The History of America’s Future, 1584 to 2069 (1991), which discusses the history of the United States as a series of generational biographies going back to 1584.^[1] In their book The Fourth Turning (1997), the authors expanded the theory to focus on a fourfold cycle of generational types and recurring mood eras^[2] to describe the history of the United States, including the Thirteen Colonies and their British antecedents. However, the authors have also examined generational trends elsewhere in the world and described similar cycles in several developed countries.^[3]

Academic response to the theory has been mixed, with some applauding Strauss and Howe for their “bold and imaginative thesis”, while others have criticized the theory as being overly deterministic, unfalsifiable, and unsupported by rigorous evidence.^{[4][5][6][7][8]} Former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, who graduated from Harvard University with Strauss, called Generations the most stimulating book on American history he’d ever read, and even sent a copy to each member of Congress.^[8] The theory has been influential in the fields of generational studies, marketing, and business management literature.^[6] However, the theory has also been described by some historians and journalists as pseudoscientific,^[6][9][10] “kooky”,^[11] and “an elaborate historical horoscope that will never withstand scholarly scrutiny”.^[12][13][14] Academic criticism has focused on the lack of rigorous empirical evidence for their claims,^[15] as well as the authors’ view that generational groupings are more powerful than other social groupings, such as economic class, race, sex, religion, and political parties.^[1]

History and works

William Strauss and Neil Howe’s partnership began in the late 1980s when they began writing their first book Generations, which discusses the history of the United States as a succession of generational biographies. Each had written on generational topics: Strauss on Baby Boomers and the Vietnam War draft, and Howe on the G.I. Generation and federal entitlement programs.^[16] Strauss co-wrote two books with Lawrence Baskir about how the Vietnam War affected the Baby Boomers: Chance and Circumstance: The Draft, the War, and the Vietnam Generation (1978) and Reconciliation after Vietnam (1977). Neil Howe studied what he believed to be the U.S.’s entitlement attitude of the 1980s and co-authored On Borrowed Time: How the Growth in Entitlement Spending Threatens America’s Future in 1988 with Peter George Peterson.^[17] The authors’ interest in generations as a broader topic emerged after they met in Washington, D.C., and began discussing the connections between each of their previous works.^[18]

External videos
Booknotes interview with Howe and Strauss on Generations, April 14, 1991, C-SPAN
Discussion with Howe and Strauss on The Fourth Turning, April 17, 1998, C-SPAN

They wondered why Boomers and G.I.s had developed such different ways of looking at the world, and what it was about these generations’ experiences growing up that prompted their different outlooks. They also wondered whether any previous generations had acted along similar lines, and their research discussed historical analogs to the current generations. They ultimately described a recurring pattern in the Anglo-American history of four generational types, each with a distinct collective persona, and a corresponding cycle of four different types of era, each with a distinct mood.^[19] The groundwork for this theory was laid out in Generations in 1991. Generations helped popularize the idea that people in a particular age group tend to share a distinct set of beliefs, attitudes, values, and behaviors because they all grow up and come of age during a particular period in history.^[8]

Strauss and Howe followed in 1993 with their second book 13th Gen: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail?, which was published while Gen Xers were young adults. The book examines the generation born between 1961 and 1981, “Gen-Xers” (which they called “13ers”, describing them as the thirteenth generation since the US became a nation). The book asserts that 13ers’ location in history as under-protected children during the Consciousness Revolution explains their pragmatic attitude. They describe Gen Xers as growing up during a time when society was less focused on children and more focused on adults and their self-actualization.^[20][2]

Strauss and Howe’s theory provided historical information regarding living in past generations and made various predictions. Many of their predictions regarded the Millennial generation, a cohort consisting at the time of young children, and therefore these predictions lacked significant historical data. In Generations (1991) and The Fourth Turning (1997), the two authors discussed the generation gap between Baby Boomers and their parents and predicted there would be no such gap between Millennials and their elders. In 2000, they published Millennials Rising: The Next Great Generation. This work discussed the personality of the Millennial Generation, whose oldest members were described as the high school graduating class of the year 2000. In the 2000 book, Strauss and Howe asserted that Millennial teens and young adults were recasting the image of youth from “downbeat and alienated to upbeat and engaged”, crediting increased parental attention and protection for these positive changes. They asserted Millennials are held to higher standards than adults apply to themselves and that they are much less vulgar and violent than the teen culture older people produce for them. They described them as less sexually charged and as ushering in a new sexual modesty, with an increasing belief that sex should be saved for marriage and a return to conservative family values. The authors predicted that over the following decade, Millennials would transform what it means to be young, and could emerge as the next “Great Generation”. The work was described as an optimistic, feel-good book for the parents of the Millennial Generation, predominantly the Baby Boomers.^[4][21][22] A 2000 New York Times book review for this book titled: What’s the Matter With Kids Today? Not a Thing, described the message of Millennials Rising as “we boomers are raising a cohort of kids who are smarter, more industrious and better behaved than any generation before”, saying the book complimented the Baby Boomer cohort by way of their parenting skills.^[4][1][2]

In 1997, the authors published The Fourth Turning: An American Prophecy, which expanded on the ideas presented in Generations and extended their cycles back into the early 15th century. The authors also updated their terminology for generational archetypes (e.g. “Civics” became “Heroes”, which they applied to the Millennial Generation, “Adaptives” became “Artists”), and introduced the terms “Turning” and “Saeculum” to describe the generational cycles.^[23] The title is a reference to what their first book called a Crisis period, which they expected to recur soon after the turn of the millennium.^[24]

In the mid-1990s, Strauss and Howe began receiving inquiries about how their research could be applied to strategic problems in organizations. They established themselves as pioneers in a growing field and started speaking frequently about their work at events and conferences.^[8] In 1999, they founded LifeCourse Associates, a publishing, speaking, and consulting company built on their generational theory. They have also written six books in which they assert that the Millennial Generation is transforming various sectors, including schools, colleges, entertainment, and the workplace.^[promotion?]

On December 18, 2007, William Strauss died at the age of 60 from pancreatic cancer.^[25] Neil Howe continues to expand LifeCourse Associates and to write books and articles on a variety of generational topics. Each year Howe gives about 60 speeches, often followed by customized workshops, at colleges, elementary schools, and corporations.^[8] Neil Howe is a public policy adviser to the Blackstone Group, senior adviser to the Concord Coalition, and senior associate to the Center for Strategic and International Studies.^[26] In July 2023 Howe released a new book, titled The Fourth Turning Is Here.^[27]

Steve Bannon, former Chief Strategist and Senior Counselor to former president Donald Trump is a prominent proponent of the theory. As a documentary filmmaker, Bannon discussed the details of Strauss–Howe generational theory in Generation Zero. According to historian David Kaiser, who was consulted for the film, Generation Zero “focused on the key aspect of their theory, the idea that every 80 years of American history has been marked by a crisis, or ‘fourth turning’, that destroyed an old order and created a new one”. Kaiser said Bannon is “very familiar with Strauss and Howe’s theory of crisis, and has been thinking about how to use it to achieve particular goals for quite a while.”^[28][29][30] A February 2017 article from Business Insider titled: “Steve Bannon’s obsession with a dark theory of history should be worrisome”, commented: “Bannon seems to be trying to bring about the ‘Fourth Turning’.”^[31]

Defining a generation[edit]

Strauss and Howe describe the history of the U.S. as a succession of Anglo-American generational biographies from 1435 to the present, and theorized a recurring generational cycle in American history. The authors posit a pattern of four repeating phases, generational types, and a recurring cycle of spiritual awakenings and secular crises, from the founding colonials of America through the present day.^[1][2]

Strauss and Howe define a social generation as the aggregate of all people born over a span of roughly twenty years or about the length of one phase of life: childhood, young adulthood, midlife, and old age. Generations are identified (from the first birthyear to last) by looking for cohort groups of this length that share three criteria. First, members of a generation share what the authors call an age location in history: they encounter key historical events and social trends while occupying the same phase of life. In this view, members of a generation are shaped in lasting ways by the eras they encounter as children and young adults and they share certain common beliefs and behaviors. Aware of the experiences and traits that they share with their peers, members of a generation would also share a sense of common perceived membership in that generation.^[32]

They based their definition of a generation on the work of various writers and social thinkers, from ancient writers such as Polybius and Ibn Khaldun to modern social theorists such as José Ortega y Gasset, Karl Mannheim, John Stuart Mill, Émile Littré, Auguste Comte, and François Mentré.^[33]

Turnings[edit]

While writing Generations, Strauss and Howe described a theorized pattern in the historical generations they examined, which they say revolved around generational events which they call turnings. In Generations, and in greater detail in The Fourth Turning, they describe a four-stage cycle of social or mood eras which they call “turnings”. The turnings include: “The High”, “The Awakening”, “The Unraveling” and “The Crisis”.^[2]

High[edit]

According to Strauss and Howe, the First Turning is a High, which occurs after a Crisis. During The High, institutions are strong and individualism is weak. Society is confident about where it wants to go collectively, though those outside the majoritarian center often feel stifled by conformity.^[34]

According to the authors, the most recent First Turning in the US was the post–World War II American High, beginning in 1946 and ending with the assassination of John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963.^[35]

Awakening[edit]

According to the theory, the Second Turning is an Awakening. This is an era when institutions are attacked in the name of personal and spiritual autonomy. Just when society is reaching its high tide of public progress, people suddenly tire of social discipline and want to recapture a sense of “self-awareness”, “spirituality” and “personal authenticity”. Young activists look back at the previous High as an era of cultural and spiritual poverty.^[36]

Strauss and Howe say the U.S.’s most recent Awakening was the “Consciousness Revolution”, which spanned from the campus and inner-city revolts of the mid-1960s to the tax revolts of the early 1980s.^[37]

Unraveling[edit]

According to Strauss and Howe, the Third Turning is an Unraveling. The mood of this era they say is in many ways the opposite of a High: Institutions are weak and distrusted, while individualism is strong and flourishing. The authors say Highs come after Crises when society wants to coalesce and build and avoid the death and destruction of the previous crisis. Unravelings come after Awakenings when society wants to atomize and enjoy.^[38] They say the most recent Unraveling in the US began in the 1980s and includes the Long Boom and Culture War.^[2]

Crisis[edit]

According to the authors, the Fourth Turning is a Crisis. This is an era of destruction, often involving war or revolution, in which institutional life is destroyed and rebuilt in response to a perceived threat to the nation’s survival. After the crisis, civic authority revives, cultural expression redirects toward community purpose, and people begin to locate themselves as members of a larger group.^[39]

The authors say the previous Fourth Turning in the US began with the Wall Street Crash of 1929 and climaxed with the end of World War II. The G.I. Generation (which they call a Hero archetype, born 1901 to 1924) came of age during this era. They say their confidence, optimism, and collective outlook epitomized the mood of that era.^[40] The authors assert the Millennial Generation (which they also describe as a Hero archetype, born 1982 to 2005) shows many similar traits to those of the G.I. youth, which they describe as including rising civic engagement, improving behavior, and collective confidence.^[41]

Play

Play

Play

Leave the World Behind (film)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Leave the World Behind
Release poster
Directed by	Sam Esmail
Screenplay by	Sam Esmail
Based on	Leave the World Behind by Rumaan Alam
Produced by	Julia RobertsMarisa Yeres GillLisa GillanSam EsmailChad Hamilton
Starring	Julia RobertsMahershala AliEthan HawkeMyha’laKevin Bacon
Cinematography	Tod Campbell
Edited by	Lisa Lassek
Music by	Mac Quayle
Production companies	Esmail CorpRed Om FilmsHigher Ground Productions[1]
Distributed by	Netflix
Release dates	October 25, 2023 (AFI)November 22, 2023
Running time	140 minutes[2]
Country	United States
Language	English

Leave the World Behind is a 2023 American apocalyptic psychological thriller film written and directed by Sam Esmail. It is based on the 2020 novel by Rumaan Alam. The film stars Julia Roberts, Mahershala Ali, Ethan Hawke, Myha’la, and Kevin Bacon as they attempt to make sense of the gradual breakdown in phones, television, and other regularly used technology which points to a potential cataclysm.

Leave the World Behind had its world premiere at the AFI Fest on October 25, 2023. It was released in select theaters on November 22, 2023, before its streaming release by Netflix on December 8, 2023. It received generally positive reviews from critics.

Plot[edit]

The plot is set in New York City. The psychological subtext turns on white liberalism and class divisions. Misanthrope Amanda Sandford^[3] arranges an impromptu weekend getaway at a lavish vacation rental near a beach with the goal of spending quality time together with her family. She and her white husband Clay drive to the rental on Long Island with their teenage son Archie and younger daughter Rose.

While shopping for groceries, Amanda notices a rugged man (Danny) stocking up on large quantities of canned food and water. Later, while the family relaxed at a nearby beach, they narrowly escape an oil tanker that ran ashore. When they return to the house, they notice the TV and Wi-Fi aren’t working and a pair of deer stare at the house from beyond the pool.

That night, the wealthy owner, George H. (“G.H.”) Scott and his college-age daughter Ruth, unexpectedly interrupt the Sandfords’ ideal vacation. Seeking shelter, G.H. explains that a blackout in Manhattan compelled their return. Amanda is suspicious. Clay invites them to stay.

The next morning, Rose is frustrated that the Wi-Fi and TV are still down, which has prevented her from watching the series finale of Friends. Amanda notices news alerts on her phone about the blackout, most of which are about hackers, and the final one being corrupted code. Bored, Rose witnesses a large herd of deer motionless in the backyard.

Attempting to learn about the disruptions and fix the Wi-Fi, Clay drives to town while G.H. heads to his neighbors’ house; Clay abandons a non-English speaking Hispanic woman desperately seeking help and spots a drone dropping leaflets written in Arabic. Meanwhile, G.H. searches a neighbor’s home, discovers the wreckage of a plane crash, and narrowly escapes a second one.

Elsewhere, Rose hikes along with Archie in the nearby woods, where they come across an empty shed, and Archie removes a tick from his ankle on the way back. Returning to the house, G.H. confides to Amanda the events he witnessed. He theorizes that nationwide satellite connectivity has been disrupted, but he is cut off by a loud shrill sonic attack. Amanda recalls the man stockpiling water, whom G.H. assumes is Danny, his housing contractor. Clay returns shaken with the leaflet, which Archie partially translates as “Death to America“. Fed up, the Sandfords flee the rental, intending to drive to Amanda’s sister in New Jersey, but find the highway jammed with collided self-driving Teslas; they narrowly avoid incoming cars that crash as well, and they are forced to return to G.H.’s house.

Throughout the night, Ruth asks Clay provocative questions and later discovers flamingoes in the pool. Amanda and G.H. establish a friendly bond around music from the new jack swing era, but are startled by a second shrill sonic attack, then the power fails. Later, Rose tells Amanda a story from an episode of The West Wing where God attempts to save a man from a flood with several warnings and escape opportunities.

The next morning, Archie’s teeth inexplicably fall out; believing it is related to the tick bite, G.H. suggests visiting Danny for medicine. Rose, however, is missing. G.H. and Clay take Archie to visit Danny, while Amanda and Ruth search for Rose. At the shed, the two are confronted by a herd of deer, which they scare away. Meanwhile, G.H. and Clay attempt to convince Danny to help Archie, which results in an armed standoff between G.H. and Danny. Clay intervenes, convincing Danny to help Archie. Afterwards, Danny tells G.H. that another neighbor may be equipped with an underground bunker and suggests that the noise and Archie’s teeth falling out are the results of a microwave weapon.

Shaken, G.H. hypothesizes to Clay and Archie that the country is in the midst of a three-stage military campaign that will culminate in a coup d’état. At the same time, Amanda and Ruth watch New York City being bombed and hear gunfire in the distance. Meanwhile, Rose has found the neighbor’s house with the bunker. Inside, a computer message warns of elevated radiation levels across multiple U.S. cities and attack by rogue armed forces. She finds a DVD of Friends, and watches the series finale.

Cast[edit]

• Julia Roberts as Amanda Sandford
• Mahershala Ali as G.H. Scott
• Ethan Hawke as Clay Sandford
• Myha’la as Ruth Scott
• Farrah Mackenzie as Rose Sandford
• Charlie Evans as Archie Sandford
• Kevin Bacon as Danny
• Vanessa Aspillaga as Salvadora

Production[edit]

Netflix won a bidding war for the rights to the novel by Rumaan Alam in July 2020, with Sam Esmail attached to write and direct. Julia Roberts and Denzel Washington were set to star in and produce the film.^[4]

Former U.S. president Barack and First Lady Michelle Obama executive-produced the film through their Higher Ground Productions banner. Obama included the novel on his 2021 summer reading list.^[5]

Writing[edit]

The novel, according to notable writer and blogger Roxane Gay, is a psychological thriller that delves into the complexities of race, class, and family dynamics, mirroring the chaos of a world on the brink of collapse. In the opulent setting of the Hamptons, a white family’s vacation from a “comfortable but not extravagant life in their Brooklyn home”^[3] takes a surreal turn when the black homeowners unexpectedly arrive.

Obama offered Esmail his thoughts on the screenplay during the writing process. Esmail said, “He had a lot notes about the characters and the empathy we would have for them. I have to say he is a big movie lover, and he wasn’t just giving notes about things that were from his background. He was giving notes as a fan of the book, and he wanted to see a really good film.”^[5]

Casting and filming[edit]

In September 2021, Mahershala Ali had been cast in the film, replacing Washington, who had left the project.^[6] Ethan Hawke and Myha’la Herrold joined in January 2022.^[7][8]

Filming began in April 2022 on Long Island,^[9] in a home designed by The Up Studio.^[10] Additional filming took place in Katonah, New York in May 2022.^[11]

Soundtrack[edit]

Mac Quayle composed an original score for the film which consisted of 9 notes and was inspired by French composer Olivier Messiaen and his Messiaen modes, namely Mode 3. Quayle said “I started playing around with them and I found that Mode 3, which is essentially a scale, was producing a really interesting harmonic feeling,” going on to say “And I got this idea that I might do the entire film in this one mode… I didn’t know if it would carry me through the entire film, but it did.”^[12]

Esmail tried to pick songs that had not been used on TV or film before as he was worried viewers would have associations with those songs that would “interfere or complicate what the scene’s about or what the viewer is feeling as they’re watching the scene.” For example, Esmail chose “Too Close” by Next, a song that he felt was “really funny and sweet at the same time” and had not been overused in film, for a scene that “goes from lighthearted and playful to sad and dark within a matter of a minute.”^[12]

Release[edit]

Leave the World Behind had its world premiere as the opening film of the AFI Fest on October 25, 2023, with the cast not attending due to the 2023 SAG-AFTRA strike.^[13] It was released in limited theaters on November 22, before streaming Netflix on December 8, 2023.^[14]

Reception[edit]

Critical response[edit]

On the review aggregator website Rotten Tomatoes, 75% of 145 critics’ reviews are positive, with an average rating of 6.8/10. The website’s consensus reads: “An exceptionally well-acted apocalyptic thriller, Leave the World Behind steadily draws the viewer in despite its leisurely pace and somewhat simplistic messaging.”^[15] Metacritic, which uses a weighted average, assigned the film a score of 68 out of 100, based on 35 critics, indicating “generally favorable” reviews.^[16]

In a positive review for The Washington Post, Michael O’Sullivan wrote, “It plays like an M. Night Shyamalan movie, but without the supernatural element and with a thick vein of social critique running throughout. What happens may be extreme, but it feels based on mundane reality.”^[17] Wenlei Ma writing for The Sunday Times called the film “jittery and suspenseful”, and that some overhead cinematography “emphasises that we’re all puppets in someone’s else marionette theatre … we’re not in control, but Esmail is of his startling, character-driven doomsday story”.^[18]

Bilge Ebiri for Vulture compared the film unfavorably to Alam’s book: “every change made for the adaptation happens to be for the worse. … the film doesn’t demonstrate any kind of interest in, or affection for, its characters. … This feels more like a collection of cool ideas than scenes that belong to the same emotional and consequential continuum.”^[19] Alissa Wilkinson for The New York Times wrote, “After a while, the movie plays like a bulleted list of everything wrong with America … the narrative tension dulls into passivity, both for us and for the characters”, and that the “ending seems like a punchline.”^[3]

Esmail said he hoped the film’s ending would provoke conversation: “…the expectation is at the end of [traditional disaster] films, your cast of characters overcomes the disaster and the world reverts back to some sane semblance of normalcy. I knew that I wasn’t going to do that.”^[20]

Coup d’état

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

“Counter-coup” and “Coup” redirect here. For the injury type, see Coup contrecoup injury. For other uses, see Coup (disambiguation) and Coup d’état (disambiguation).

Part of a series on
Political revolution
showBy class
showBy other characteristic
showMethods
showExamples
Politics portal
vte

A coup d’état (/ˌkuːdeɪˈtɑː/ ^ⓘ; French for ‘stroke of state’),^[1] or simply a coup, is typically an illegal and overt attempt by a military organization or other government elites to unseat an incumbent leadership.^[2][3] A self-coup is when a leader, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means.^[3]

By one estimate, there were 457 coup attempts from 1950 to 2010, half of which were successful.^[2] Most coup attempts occurred in the mid-1960s, but there were also large numbers of coup attempts in the mid-1970s and the early 1990s.^[2] Coups occurring in the post-Cold War period have been more likely to result in democratic systems than Cold War coups,^[4][5][6] though coups still mostly perpetuate authoritarianism.^[7]

Many factors may lead to the occurrence of a coup, as well as determine the success or failure of a coup. Once a coup is underway, coup success is driven by coup-makers’ ability to get elites and the public to believe that their coup attempt will be successful.^[8] The number of successful coups has decreased over time.^[2] Failed coups in authoritarian systems are likely to strengthen the power of the authoritarian ruler.^[9][10] The cumulative number of coups is a strong predictor of future coups, a phenomenon referred to as the “coup trap”.^{[11][12][13][14]}

In what is referred to as “coup-proofing”, regimes create structures that make it hard for any small group to seize power. These coup-proofing strategies may include the strategic placing of family, ethnic, and religious groups in the military; and fragmenting of military and security agencies.^[15] However, coup-proofing reduces military effectiveness as loyalty is prioritized over experience when filling key positions within the military.^{[16][17][18][19][20][21] [22]}

Etymology[edit]

The term comes from French coup d’État, literally meaning a ‘stroke of state’ or ‘blow of state’.^[23][24][25] In French, the word État (French: [eta]) is capitalized when it denotes a sovereign political entity.^[26]

Although the concept of a coup d’état has featured in politics since antiquity, the phrase is of relatively recent coinage.^[27] It did not appear within an English text before the 19th century except when used in the translation of a French source, there being no simple phrase in English to convey the contextualized idea of a ‘knockout blow to the existing administration within a state’.

One early use within text translated from French was in 1785 in a printed translation of a letter from a French merchant, commenting on an arbitrary decree or arrêt issued by the French king restricting the import of British wool.^[28] What may be its first published use within a text composed in English is an editor’s note in the London Morning Chronicle, January 7, 1802, reporting the arrest by Napoleon in France, of Moreau, Berthier, Masséna, and Bernadotte: “There was a report in circulation yesterday of a sort of coup d’état having taken place in France, in consequence of some formidable conspiracy against the existing government.”

In the British press, the phrase came to be used to describe the various murders by Napoleon’s alleged secret police, the Gens d’Armes d’Elite, who executed the Duke of Enghien: “the actors in torture, the distributors of the poisoning draughts, and the secret executioners of those unfortunate individuals or families, whom Bonaparte’s measures of safety require to remove. In what revolutionary tyrants call grand[s] coups d’état, as butchering, or poisoning, or drowning, en masse, they are exclusively employed.”^[29]

Related terms[edit]

Self coup[edit]

This section is an excerpt from Self-coup.[edit]

A self-coup, also called an autocoup (from Spanish autogolpe) or coup from the top, is a form of coup d’état in which a nation’s head, having come to power through legal means, tries to stay in power through illegal means. The leader may dissolve or render powerless the national legislature and unlawfully assume extraordinary powers not granted under normal circumstances. Other measures may include annulling the nation’s constitution, suspending civil courts, and having the head of government assume dictatorial powers.^[30][31]Between 1946 and 2022, an estimated 148 self-coup attempts took place, 110 in autocracies and 38 in democracies.^[32]

Soft coup[edit]

A soft coup, sometimes referred to as a silent coup or a bloodless coup, is an illegal overthrow of a government, but unlike a regular coup d’état it is achieved without the use of force or violence.^[33]

Palace coup[edit]

A palace coup or palace revolution is a coup in which one faction within the ruling group displaces another faction within a ruling group.^[34] Along with popular protests, palace coups are a major threat to dictators.^[35] The Harem conspiracy of the 12th century BC was one of the earliest. Palace coups were common in Imperial China.^[36] They have also occurred among the Habsburg dynasty in Austria, the Al-Thani dynasty in Qatar,^[37] and in Haiti in the 19th to early 20th centuries.^[38] The majority of Russian tsars between 1725 and 1801 were either overthrown or usurped power in palace coups.^[39]

Putsch[edit]

The term Putsch ([pʊtʃ], from Swiss-German ‘knock’), denotes the political-military actions of an unsuccessful minority reactionary coup.^[40][41] The term was initially coined for the Züriputsch of 6 September 1839 in Switzerland. It was also used for attempted coups in Weimar Germany, such as the 1920 Kapp Putsch, Küstrin Putsch, and Adolf Hitler‘s 1923 Beer Hall Putsch.^[42]

The 1934 Night of the Long Knives was Hitler’s purge to eliminate opponents, particularly the paramilitary faction led by Ernst Röhm, but Nazi propaganda justified it as preventing a supposed putsch planned or attempted by Röhm. The Nazi term Röhm-Putsch is still used by Germans to describe the event, often with quotation marks as the ‘so-called Röhm Putsch’.^[43]

The 1961 Algiers putsch and the 1991 August Putsch also use the term.

Pronunciamiento and cuartelazo[edit]

Main article: Pronunciamiento

Pronunciamiento (‘pronouncement’) is a term of Spanish origin for a type of coup d’état. Specifically the pronunciamiento is the formal declaration deposing the previous government and justifying the installation of the new government by the golpe de estado. One author distinguishes a coup, in which a military or political faction takes power for itself, from a pronunciamiento, in which the military deposes the existing government and hands over power to a new, ostensibly civilian government.^[44]

A “barracks revolt” or cuartelazo is another type of military revolt, from the Spanish term cuartel (‘quarter’ or ‘barracks’), in which the mutiny of specific military garrisons sparks a larger military revolt against the government.^[45]

Other[edit]

Other types of actual or attempted seizures of power are sometimes called “coups with adjectives”. The appropriate term can be subjective and carries normative, analytical, and political implications.^[33]

• Civil society coup
• Constitutional coup
• Counter-coup, a coup to repeal the result of a previous coup
• Democratic coup
• Dissident coup, in which the culprits are nominally protestors without backing from any military or police units (e.g. commonly used to describe the January 6 United States Capitol attack)^[46][47]
• Electoral coup
• Judicial coup, a “legal” coup, utilizing the judiciary as the main instrument.
• Market coup
• Military coup
• Parliamentary coup
• Presidential coup
• Royal coup, in which a monarch dismisses democratically elected leaders and seizes all power (e.g. the 6 January Dictatorship by Alexander I of Yugoslavia)^[48]
• Slow-motion (or slow-moving or slow-rolling) coup

Revolution, rebellion[edit]

While a coup is usually a conspiracy of a small group, a revolution or rebellion is usually started more spontaneously and by larger groups of uncoordinated people.^[49] The distinction is not always clear. Sometimes, a coup is labelled as a revolution by the coup plotters to pretend to democratic legitimacy.^[50][51]

Prevalence and history[edit]

Further information: List of coups and coup attempts and List of coups and coup attempts by country

According to Clayton Thyne and Jonathan Powell’s coup data set, there were 457 coup attempts from 1950 to 2010, of which 227 (49.7%) were successful and 230 (50.3%) were unsuccessful.^[2] They find that coups have “been most common in Africa and the Americas (36.5% and 31.9%, respectively). Asia and the Middle East have experienced 13.1% and 15.8% of total global coups, respectively. Europe has experienced by far the fewest coup attempts: 2.6%.”^[2] Most coup attempts occurred in the mid-1960s, but there were also large numbers of coup attempts in the mid-1970s and the early 1990s.^[2] From 1950 to 2010, a majority of coups failed in the Middle East and Latin America. They had a somewhat higher chance of success in Africa and Asia.^[7] Numbers of successful coups have decreased over time.^[2]

A number of political science datasets document coup attempts around the world and over time, generally starting in the post-World War II period. Major examples include the Global Instances of Coups dataset, the Coups & Political Instability dataset by the Center of Systemic Peace, the Coup d’etat Project by the Cline Center, the Colpus coup dataset, and the Coups and Agency Mechanism dataset. A 2023 study argued that major coup datasets tend to over-rely on international news sources to gather their information, potentially biasing the types of events included.^[52] Its findings show that while such a strategy is sufficient for gathering information on successful and failed coups, attempts to gather data on coup plots and rumors require a greater consultation of regional and local-specific sources.

Outcomes[edit]

Successful coups are one method of regime change that thwarts the peaceful transition of power.^[53][54] A 2016 study categorizes four possible outcomes to coups in dictatorships:^[5]

• Failed coup
• No regime change, as when a leader is illegally shuffled out of power without changing the ruling group or the type of government
• Replacement of incumbent with another dictatorship
• Ousting of the dictatorship followed by democratization (also called “democratic coups”)^[55]

The study found that about half of all coups in dictatorships—both during and after the Cold War—install new autocratic regimes.^[5] New dictatorships launched by coups engage in higher levels of repression in the year after the coup than existed in the year before the coup.^[5] One-third of coups in dictatorships during the Cold War and 10% of later ones reshuffled the regime leadership.^[5] Democracies were installed in the wake of 12% of Cold War coups in dictatorships and 40% of post-Cold War ones.^[5]

Coups occurring in the post-Cold War period have been more likely to result in democratic systems than Cold War coups,^[4][5][6] though coups still mostly perpetuate authoritarianism.^[7] Coups that occur during civil wars shorten the war’s duration.^[56]

Predictors[edit]

A 2003 review of the academic literature found that the following factors influenced coups:

• officers’ personal grievances
• military organizational grievances
• military popularity
• military attitudinal cohesiveness
• economic decline
• domestic political crisis
• contagion from other regional coups
• external threat
• participation in war
• collusion with a foreign military power
• military’s national security doctrine
• officers’ political culture
• noninclusive institutions
• colonial legacy
• economic development
• undiversified exports
• officers’ class composition
• military size
• strength of civil society
• regime legitimacy and past coups.^[57][11]

The literature review in a 2016 study includes mentions of ethnic factionalism, supportive foreign governments, leader inexperience, slow growth, commodity price shocks, and poverty.^[58]

Coups have been found to appear in environments that are heavily influenced by military powers. Multiple of the above factors are connected to military culture and power dynamics. These factors can be divided into multiple categories, with two of these categories being a threat to military interests and support for military interests. If interests go in either direction, the military will find itself either capitalizing off that power or attempting to gain it back.

Oftentimes, military spending is an indicator of the likelihood of a coup taking place. Nordvik found that about 75% of coups that took place in many different countries rooted from military spending and oil windfalls.^[57]

Coup trap[edit]

The accumulation of previous coups is a strong predictor of future coups,^[11][12] a phenomenon called the coup trap.^[13][14] A 2014 study of 18 Latin American countries found that the establishment of open political competition helps bring countries out of the coup trap and reduces cycles of political instability.^[14]

Regime type and polarization[edit]

Hybrid regimes are more vulnerable to coups than very authoritarian states or democratic states.^[59] A 2021 study found that democratic regimes were not substantially more likely to experience coups.^[60] A 2015 study finds that terrorism is strongly associated with re-shuffling coups.^[61] A 2016 study finds that there is an ethnic component to coups: “When leaders attempt to build ethnic armies, or dismantle those created by their predecessors, they provoke violent resistance from military officers.”^[62] Another 2016 study shows that protests increase the risk of coups, presumably because they ease coordination obstacles among coup plotters and make international actors less likely to punish coup leaders.^[63] A third 2016 study finds that coups become more likely in the wake of elections in autocracies when the results reveal electoral weakness for the incumbent autocrat.^[64] A fourth 2016 study finds that inequality between social classes increases the likelihood of coups.^[65] A fifth 2016 study finds no evidence that coups are contagious; one coup in a region does not make other coups in the region likely to follow.^[66] One study found that coups are more likely to occur in states with small populations, as there are smaller coordination problems for coup-plotters.^[67]

A 2019 study found that when a country’s politics is polarized and electoral competition is low, civilian-recruited coups become more likely.^[68]

A 2023 study found that civilian elites are more likely to be associated with instigating military coups while civilians embedded in social networks are more likely to be associated with consolidating military coups.^[69]

In autocracies, the frequency of coups seems to be affected by the succession rules in place, with monarchies with a fixed succession rule being much less plagued by instability than less institutionalized autocracies.^[70][71][72]

A 2014 study of 18 Latin American countries in the 20th-century study found the legislative powers of the presidency does not influence coup frequency.^[14]

Territorial disputes, internal conflicts, and armed conflicts[edit]

A 2017 study found that autocratic leaders whose states were involved in international rivalries over disputed territory were more likely to be overthrown in a coup. The authors of the study provide the following logic for why this is:

Autocratic incumbents invested in spatial rivalries need to strengthen the military in order to compete with a foreign adversary. The imperative of developing a strong army puts dictators in a paradoxical situation: to compete with a rival state, they must empower the very agency—the military—that is most likely to threaten their own survival in office.^[73]

However, two 2016 studies found that leaders who were involved in militarized confrontations and conflicts were less likely to face a coup.^[74][75]

A 2019 study found that states that had recently signed civil war peace agreements were much more likely to experience coups, in particular when those agreements contained provisions that jeopardized the interests of the military.^[76]

Popular opposition and regional rebellions[edit]

Research suggests that protests spur coups, as they help elites within the state apparatus to coordinate coups.^[77]

A 2019 study found that regional rebellions made coups by the military more likely.^[78]

Effect of the military[edit]

A 2018 study found that coup attempts were less likely in states where the militaries derived significant incomes from peacekeeping missions.^[79] The study argued that militaries were dissuaded from staging coups because they feared that the UN would no longer enlist the military in peacekeeping missions.^[79]

A separate 2018 study found that the presence of military academies were linked to coups. The authors argue that military academies make it easier for military officers to plan coups, as the schools build networks among military officers.^[80]

Economy, development, and resource factors[edit]

A 2018 study found that “oil price shocks are seen to promote coups in onshore-intensive oil countries, while preventing them in offshore-intensive oil countries”.^[81] The study argues that states which have onshore oil wealth tend to build up their military to protect the oil, whereas states do not do that for offshore oil wealth.^[81]

A 2020 study found that elections had a two-sided impact on coup attempts, depending on the state of the economy. During periods of economic expansion, elections reduced the likelihood of coup attempts, whereas elections during economic crises increased the likelihood of coup attempts.^[82]

A 2021 study found that oil wealthy nations see a pronounced risk of coup attempts but these coups are unlikely to succeed.^[83]

A 2014 study of 18 Latin American countries in the 20th century study found that coup frequency does not vary with development levels, economic inequality, or the rate of economic growth.^[14]

Coup-proofing[edit]

In what is referred to as “coup-proofing”, regimes create structures that make it hard for any small group to seize power. These coup-proofing strategies may include the strategic placing of family, ethnic, and religious groups in the military; creation of an armed force parallel to the regular military; and development of multiple internal security agencies with overlapping jurisdiction that constantly monitor one another.^[15] It may also involve frequent salary hikes and promotions for members of the military,^[84] and the deliberate use of diverse bureaucrats.^[85] Research shows that some coup-proofing strategies reduce the risk of coups occurring.^[86][87] However, coup-proofing reduces military effectiveness,^{[16][17][18][19][20][21]} and limits the rents that an incumbent can extract.^[88] One reason why authoritarian governments tend to have incompetent militaries is that authoritarian regimes fear that their military will stage a coup or allow a domestic uprising to proceed uninterrupted – as a consequence, authoritarian rulers have incentives to place incompetent loyalists in key positions in the military.^[22]

A 2016 study shows that the implementation of succession rules reduce the occurrence of coup attempts.^[89] Succession rules are believed to hamper coordination efforts among coup plotters by assuaging elites who have more to gain by patience than by plotting.^[89]

According to political scientists Curtis Bell and Jonathan Powell, coup attempts in neighbouring countries lead to greater coup-proofing and coup-related repression in a region.^[90] A 2017 study finds that countries’ coup-proofing strategies are heavily influenced by other countries with similar histories.^[91] Coup-proofing is more likely in former French colonies.^[92]

A 2018 study in the Journal of Peace Research found that leaders who survive coup attempts and respond by purging known and potential rivals are likely to have longer tenures as leaders.^[93] A 2019 study in Conflict Management and Peace Science found that personalist dictatorships are more likely to take coup-proofing measures than other authoritarian regimes; the authors argue that this is because “personalists are characterized by weak institutions and narrow support bases, a lack of unifying ideologies and informal links to the ruler”.^[94]

Impact[edit]

Democracy[edit]

Research suggests that coups promoting democratization in staunchly authoritarian regimes have become less likely to end in democracy over time, and that the positive influence has strengthened since the end of the Cold War.^{[4][5][95][96][97]}

A 2014 study found that “coups promote democratization, particularly among states that are least likely to democratize otherwise”.^[95] The authors argue that coup attempts can have this consequence because leaders of successful coups have incentives to democratize quickly in order to establish political legitimacy and economic growth, while leaders who stay in power after failed coup attempts see it as a sign that they must enact meaningful reforms to remain in power.^[95] A 2014 study found that 40% of post-Cold War coups were successful. The authors argue that this may be due to the incentives created by international pressure.^[4] A 2016 study found that democracies were installed in 12% of Cold War coups and 40% of the post-Cold War coups.^[5] A 2020 study found that coups tended to lead to increases in state repression, not reductions.^[98]

According to a 2020 study, “external reactions to coups play important roles in whether coup leaders move toward authoritarianism or democratic governance. When supported by external democratic actors, coup leaders have an incentive to push for elections to retain external support and consolidate domestic legitimacy. When condemned, coup leaders are apt to trend toward authoritarianism to assure their survival.”^[99]

According to legal scholar Ilya Somin a coup to forcibly overthrow democratic government might be sometimes justified. Commenting on the 2016 Turkish coup d’état attempt, Somin opined,

There should be a strong presumption against forcibly removing a democratic regime. But that presumption might be overcome if the government in question poses a grave threat to human rights, or is likely to destroy democracy itself by shutting down future political competition.^[100]

Repression and counter-coups[edit]

According to Naunihal Singh, author of Seizing Power: The Strategic Logic of Military Coups (2014), it is “fairly rare” for the prevailing existing government to violently purge the army after a coup has been foiled. If it starts the mass killing of elements of the army, including officers who were not involved in the coup, this may trigger a “counter-coup” by soldiers who are afraid they will be next. To prevent such a desperate counter-coup that may be more successful than the initial attempt, governments usually resort to firing prominent officers and replacing them with loyalists instead.^[101]

Some research suggests that increased repression and violence typically follow both successful and unsuccessful coup attempts.^[102] However, some tentative analysis by political scientist Jay Ulfelder finds no clear pattern of deterioration in human rights practices in wake of failed coups in post-Cold War era.^[103]

Notable counter-coups include the Ottoman countercoup of 1909, the 1960 Laotian counter-coup, the Indonesian mass killings of 1965–66, the 1966 Nigerian counter-coup, the 1967 Greek counter-coup, 1971 Sudanese counter-coup, and the Coup d’état of December Twelfth in South Korea.

A 2017 study finds that the use of state broadcasting by the putschist regime after Mali’s 2012 coup did not elevate explicit approval for the regime.^[104]

According to a 2019 study, coup attempts lead to a reduction in physical integrity rights.^[105]

International response[edit]

The international community tends to react adversely to coups by reducing aid and imposing sanctions. A 2015 study finds that “coups against democracies, coups after the Cold War, and coups in states heavily integrated into the international community are all more likely to elicit global reaction.”^[106] Another 2015 study shows that coups are the strongest predictor for the imposition of democratic sanctions.^[107] A third 2015 study finds that Western states react strongest against coups of possible democratic and human rights abuses.^[107] A 2016 study shows that the international donor community in the post-Cold War period penalizes coups by reducing foreign aid.^[108] The US has been inconsistent in applying aid sanctions against coups both during the Cold War and post-Cold War periods, a likely consequence of its geopolitical interests.^[108]

Organizations such as the African Union (AU) and the Organization of American States (OAS) have adopted anti-coup frameworks. Through the threat of sanctions, the organizations actively try to curb coups. A 2016 study finds that the AU has played a meaningful role in reducing African coups.^[109]

A 2017 study found that negative international responses, especially from powerful actors, have a significant effect in shortening the duration of regimes created in coups.^[110]

According to a 2020 study, coups increase the cost of borrowing and increase the likelihood of sovereign default.^[111]

Play

Play

Play

TXT 501-650-4844 for a TEST-DRIVE DESIREE LOVELL at MERCEDES-BENZ of Little Rock #benzsociety #gle #amg #s #mercedesbenz #w #coupe #mercedes #g #glc #c #glecoupe #e #brabus #samg #mercedesamg #mercedesgle #scoupe #ml #cls #amggt #happynewyear #amgcoupe #v #newyearseve #cars #firworks #amgpower #cla #newyearevefireworks #amgperformance Mercedes GLE AMG 63 S – Beast! That’s how a car should sound like! #glecoupe #suv #mercedesbenz #mercedesbenzoflr #littlerock #arkansas TikTok @desirelovell2022 🔥💗💻🖥️ #desirelovell 🤍 🌸⌨️🤖YouTube @desirelovell I do work at Mercedes-Benz (as a Sales Representative) – BUT All Opinions Expressed on This Channel Are My Own and Do Not Reflect Necessarily Those of My Employer – Mercedes-Benz of Little Rock 8 Colonel Glenn Plaza Dr. Little Rock, AR 72210 dlovell@winrockautomotive.com Cell: 501-650-4844 Dealership: 501-666-9457 https://linktr.ee/desirelovell