There are no tanks in
the streets. Military marches aren't blaring from the radio. But talk of coups
seems to be everywhere. The Egyptian military government's on June 14 -- just
prior to the announcement of presidential election results -- has been widely described
as a "slow-motion coup." The Pakistani Supreme Court's
dismissal of two prime ministers in less than a week has been called a "judicial coup." Former Paraguayan President Fernando
Lugo has called his rapid impeachment last week a "parliamentary coup." The Atlantic's James Fallows even responded to the U.S. Supreme Court's
possible ruling against President Barack Obama's individual health-care mandate with a blog post titled, "5 Signs the United
States is Undergoing a Coup."
In each of these
cases, there has been a lively debate over whether the use of the word "coup" is
warranted (except perhaps in the case of Fallows, who decided to tone down his own
headline later in the day). The term coup d'état (literally "strike of state")
has been in use since French King Louis XIII took power by exiling his own
mother in 1617, though the basic concept is much older. The United States
aside, the real question today should be not whether these are coups, but what
kind they are. The modern coup d'état can be divided into three -- possibly
four -- somewhat overlapping types.
