Coups are an anachronism today

A coup d'etat, or a commandeering of the state by force of arms, is an anachronism these days. It is a truth the new military junta in Myanmar does not appear to have remembered. It may be that the regime of General Min Aung Hlaing will eventually dig deep roots in the country, but the fact that people in Myanmar have been beating their pots and pans every day in loud protest against the coup reflects a new reality --- that people are not any more afraid of protesting against soldiers taking charge of countries. Myanmar's doctors have demonstrated unquestioned courage through displaying the colours of the National League for Democracy to underscore their disgust at the military takeover.

The world is not perfect and politics is not always satisfying. That is the unvarnished truth we confront today. But none of that is a reason to suppose that people will feel happy every time democracy is threatened by the forces of extra-constitutionalism. Not long ago, with overt American support, Juan Guaido sought to overthrow the elected government of President Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela. He declared himself President, an act that was unwisely welcomed by many in the West. In the end, though, President Maduro prevailed. The lesson was clear: coup makers, be they civilians or in military fatigues, are unwelcome.

One needs to take a look at Thailand, where democracy has always been a tentative affair. In recent times, two elected governments led by Thaksin Shinawatra and Yingluck Shinawatra, in that order, were sent packing by the military. Despite the fact that General Prayut Chan-ocha rules the country today in the guise of a democracy which does not tolerate opposition, Thailand remains a powder keg. In these times, when political consciousness is acute and people are smarter than their earlier generations, regimes resting on fear and armed might are never secure. There is such a thing as People Power. Prayut has much to be worried about, given the recent protests against lese majeste by the young in Bangkok. That moves to seize power through naked ambition are doomed to collapse has only recently been exemplified in the United States (US) by Donald Trump's failed attempts to overturn the results of the presidential election which saw Joe Biden defeat him at the voting centres. It was a shame that Trump and his cabal even considered the idea of imposing martial law, through invoking the Insurrection Act, and preventing a legitimate takeover of the government by his triumphant rival. The storming of the Capitol was a gross abuse of democratic politics that Trump instigated. It would not succeed and it did not. Whether it is Americans or people anywhere else in the world, unbridled ambition is what they do not welcome and do not tolerate these days.

Think back on the former Soviet Union, where in August 1991 a band of Communist Party hardliners deposed Mikhail Gorbachev and settled back in the feeling that the country was in their grip finally. Perestroika and glasnost would not be there anymore. But they had reckoned without the reaction of their citizens, who with Boris Yeltsin in the lead pushed them out of their ill-gotten power in the Kremlin. But, yes, the coup did leave some terrible results. It eventually brought an end not only to Gorbachev's leadership but also signalled the coming demise of the Soviet Union. Had those ambitious men in the Politburo desisted from doing what they did, history would be different.

There is then the matter of Turkey, where a few years ago President Recep Tayyep Erdogan harshly put down an attempt by military officers to overthrow his elected government. Scores of officers were arrested, some on mere suspicion of involvement, and carted off to prison. Erdogan, a man whose love for absolute power is not to be denied, also came down hard on the media through detaining journalists and linking them with the abortive coup. While the coup did not succeed, those behind it ironically only served --- and this they had not predicted --- to empower Erdogan in ways that now make it difficult for anyone to challenge his authority in Ankara.

The bottom line ought to be obvious, which is that these are not the 1960s or 1970s when overthrowing legally established governments by force was routine. Ghana's President Kwame Nkrumah was ousted even as he arrived in Beijing on an official visit in 1966. Mali's President Modibo Keita was ousted by the army, as was Algeria's leader Ahmed Ben Bella by his defence minister Houari Boumeddiene. In 1964, with the backing of the US, the Brazilian army overthrew the government of Joao Goulart.

In 1976, the Argentine army removed President Isabel Peron from office. The tragedy of Chile in 1973 is part of history. Pakistan has had the misfortune of passing under the long shadow of four military rulers. A violent coup ended the government of Bangabandhu Sheikh Mujibur Rahman in Bangladesh. In 1982, General H M Ershad seized the state from Justice Abdus Sattar, the elected President of Bangladesh. The list goes on and on. Suffice it to say those were different times, unreal times, even though men like Egypt's Abdel Fatah el Sisi happen to be happily ensconced in power after removing the elected government of President Mohammad Morsi. There was Tahrir Square once. It might be there again.  Myanmar's new rulers should take note. It is not 1962. It is not 1988. People are not afraid anymore, anywhere around the globe.

Syed Badrul Ahsan is a senior journalist and writer.

[email protected]