With the resurgence of great-power rivalries dominating international relations once more, democratic governments find themselves increasingly reliant on covert operations to influence or reshape regimes in weaker states. Yet these secretive maneuvers, far from promoting global democracy, are highlighting its frailties at a time when authoritarianism is gaining ground.
Indeed, local militaries—whether supported externally or not—continue to be the primary forces behind regime changes. Take Pakistan as an example: in 2022, the military orchestrated the removal of Prime Minister Imran Khan, reasserting its historical dominance over the civilian government. Similarly, in Bangladesh, the military recently exploited a violent student-led uprising to force Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina to flee. They then installed an interim administration helmed by Nobel laureate Muhammad Yunus.
Still, external powers frequently play a pivotal role in such upheavals. Admittedly, the mechanisms involved are generally opaque. Because strategic subterfuge seldom leaves obvious traces, intervening nations can credibly deny any involvement, leaving independent analysts scrambling to separate fact from conspiracy theory.
Nonetheless, it’s usually not that challenging to identify the sources of foreign leverage. China, for example, stands as the world’s largest trading economy and is the primary official creditor to developing nations. China’s loans are often shrouded in secrecy, but it’s clear they come with numerous strings attached, heightening China’s influence over its borrowers and potentially leading them into sovereignty-compromising debt traps.
The United States, on the other hand, wields its power within the international financial system. It has considerable influence over traditional financial institutions like the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund and issues the world’s primary reserve currency. These levers grant it significant power to either reward or penalize countries, including by imposing harsh economic sanctions.
The U.S. has long been accused of meddling in foreign regimes, either by interfering in elections or sponsoring uprisings. There have even been allegations that the U.S. had a hand in the recent overthrows of Khan in Pakistan and Hasina in Bangladesh, despite official denials.
This raises the question: What does a democracy like the U.S. aim to achieve by facilitating regime change? It’s unlikely they’re banking on lasting democratic transformations, which seldom emerge in the wake of popular uprisings. Instead, such countries often spiral into political instability, social unrest, and economic turbulence.
A more plausible explanation is that Western powers seek to advance their own geopolitical and economic interests by bolstering “friendly” regimes and ousting “unfriendly” ones. The democratic bona fides of these regimes appear to be a secondary concern, although a veneer of democracy is often preferred by Western powers.
This explains why military takeovers are frequently followed by elections or the establishment of a civilian-led government—such as in Bangladesh. Military leaders aim to enhance the new government’s international legitimacy and, frequently, maintain access to Western financial aid. After all, the U.S. is legally compelled to cut off aid to a nation implicated in a coup. Following the military junta’s return to power in Myanmar in 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden’s administration imposed stringent sanctions on the regime, eventually supplying non-lethal aid to anti-junta forces.
However, U.S. leaders exercise great caution in designating military takeovers as “coups.” Of the more than two dozen military coups or indirect takeovers in the past 15 years, the U.S. has refrained from condemning about half, perceiving these regime changes as beneficial to its regional interests. In doing so, the U.S. often sacrifices democratic principles at the altar of geopolitical strategy.
It’s crucial to note that elections—even competitive ones—do not automatically ensure popular empowerment or adherence to constitutional governance, particularly when the military retains decisive influence. While the international community might view a civilian-led government as legitimate, domestic acceptance may be another matter. Often, the coup-makers simply swap their military uniforms for civilian garb to appease global watchdogs—exactly as the Thai army chief did after seizing power in 2014.
Globally, democracy is in retreat. Political rights and civil liberties are eroding for many populations. Even in some of the world’s leading democracies, public trust in government is plummeting and political polarization is intensifying. Moreover, closed autocracies now outnumber liberal democracies. By condoning or tolerating military rule, even when garbed in civilian attire, Western powers are likely to accelerate this concerning trend.
©2024 Project Syndicate
Brahma Chellaney is Professor Emeritus of Strategic Studies at the New Delhi-based Center for Policy Research and Fellow at the Robert Bosch Academy in Berlin.
While I agree that external powers have a massive influence, blaming everything on the US and China seems too simplistic. There are many actors involved.
True, but the US and China undoubtedly hold the most sway. Their policies shape global politics more than any other countries.
Yeah, but don’t forget Russia’s role. They’re pretty influential in their own right, especially in nearby regions.
Don’t underplay the role of regional powers like Saudi Arabia and Iran. They have their own covert operations influencing neighboring countries.
So basically, democracy is just a facade used by powerful nations to justify their interventions? That’s pretty depressing.
Exactly! It’s all about power and control. Real democracy is a myth in international relations.
But what about the democratic movements that come from within? Not all regime changes are orchestrated by external powers.
Cynical, but not entirely wrong. It’s a balancing act between ideals and realpolitik.
What about the ethical implications of supporting military coups? Aren’t we just perpetuating violence and instability?
Ethics often take a backseat to strategic interests. Unfortunately, that’s the reality of international politics.
Countries like the US and China are essentially bullies on the global playground. Smaller nations don’t stand a chance.
But sometimes those smaller nations need external help to overthrow tyrannical regimes. It’s not always black and white.
Helping overthrow tyrannical regimes often just replaces one tyrant with another, though.
Isn’t the point of democracy to ensure the will of the people? How can that ever truly happen with so much external interference?
It’s almost impossible. True democracy needs to come from within, without foreign meddling.
Exactly. Countries need to figure out their own paths to democracy, even if it’s a longer and more difficult process.
Agreed. External influence often undermines the very essence of democracy.
The U.S. selectively condemns military coups that don’t align with its interests. That hypocrisy erodes its moral authority.
Hypocrisy in foreign policy is nothing new. Most nations act in their own self-interest.
Bangladesh’s situation is a clear example of how military might trumps democratic principles. It’s sad but true.
Doesn’t this just show that democracy isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution? Each country has its own unique challenges and histories.
Spot on. Imposing a Western model of democracy on diverse cultures and histories is bound to fail more often than succeed.
We should focus on strengthening democratic institutions rather than resorting to covert operations. It might be slow, but it’s the sustainable way.
Given the current global political climate, isn’t it naive to think that powerful nations will ever stop meddling in weaker states?
I think democratic backsliding is inevitable when economic interests and realpolitik dictate international relations.
Is democracy even worth fighting for if it just becomes a tool for external manipulation?
Yes, it is. True democracy empowers people and should always be the end goal, despite the challenges.
The economic sanctions by the U.S. often hurt the citizens of a country more than the regimes in power. How is that justified?