Interesting new research paper on the decline of long lived coup regimes:
In this paper, we use new data on coup d’etats and elections to uncover a striking change in what happens after the coup. Whereas the vast majority of successful coups before 1990 installed their leaders durably in power, between 1991 and 2001 the picture reverses, with the majority of coups leading to competitive elections in 5 years or less. We argue that with the end of the Cold War, outside pressure has produced a devel- opment we characterize as the “electoral norm†– a requirement that binds successful coup-entrepreneurs to hold reasonably prompt and competitive elections upon gaining power. Consistent with our explanation, we find that post-Cold War those countries that are most dependent on Western aid have been the first the embrace competitive elections after the coup. Our theory is also able to account for the pronounced decline in the non-constitutional seizure of executive power since the early 1990s. While the coup d’etat has been and still is the single most important factor leading to the down- fall of democratic government, our findings indicate that the new generation of coups have been considerably less nefarious for democracy than their historical predecessors.
Of course, as the Egyptians know, there’s more to democracy than just holding elections and a return to democracy after a military coup is often only cosmetic; even Burma has elections. Coups and military dictatorships are too heavyhanded for the modern totalitarian: better to give the semblance of democracy to the people, let these elections even be meaningful, if unthreatening. Even (especially) in democracy’s “heartlands” a lot of the system cannot be changed through elections and we’re only offered a choice between New and Classic Coke. That’s the pessimist take.
The optimist’s take on these developments is that even phony democracy is better than none and cynical election manipulation is still better than bullets in the streets, but also that democracy can and often will lead to more democracy, that acting out the trappings of democracy makes it real as people demand their rights supposedly safeguarded by it. That’s also what we saw in Egypt, where the slender space given to democracy and opposition against Mubarak in the end erupted and forced him to abandon power.