Responding to Coups

David Brooks' column today crystallizes an unfortunate reality in U.S. reaction to undemocratic changes of government. In short, elections are irrelevant.

Promoting elections is generally a good thing even when they produce victories for democratic forces we disagree with. But elections are not a good thing when they lead to the elevation of people whose substantive beliefs fall outside the democratic orbit. It’s necessary to investigate the core of a party’s beliefs, not just accept anybody who happens to emerge from a democratic process.

This has been very apparent for Latin America. Elections in Bolivia, Ecuador, Honduras and particularly Venezuela were shams if adversaries won. If there is popular protest, then coups are not just OK, they are good. We've recently seen hundreds of thousands in the streets of Brazil as well, unhappy with the government. That's what happens in democracies, and the United States should not condone moderator coups just because we happen to dislike the particular government.

I am not going to defend the Muslim Brotherhood, but they won the election. I am not going to defend many of Hugo Chávez's policies, but he won election after election. Mel Zelaya won an election. They all won and then lots of people--often elites with close ties to the United States--felt threatened.

From an ethical standpoint, celebrating a coup is simply wrong, as it makes a mockery of what the United States constantly claims it stands for. From a purely strategic self-interest standpoint, it is a dangerous game. The U.S. shot itself in the foot by supporting (and/or participating in) coups in Iran (generating a revolution), Cuba (giving life to Fidel Castro), Guatemala (giving oxygen to Marxist revolutionaries), Honduras (increasing drug trafficking), Nicaragua (thus helping to create the Sandinistas), El Salvador (giving fuel to the FMLN), Venezuela (increasing Hugo Chávez's support), and there are plenty more.

What Brooks and others fail to realize is that supporting elections alienates far fewer people than does negating them. I have yet to see any evidence that accepting the existence of Chávez or Nicolás Maduro makes Venezuelans in the opposition despondent or angry at the United States, yet we hear about how Barack Obama is somehow abandoning them. However, we saw very well in 2002 what Venezuelans think when the United States supports a coup.

So go ahead and support coups, but do not be surprised if you get scorched by blowback.

Update: The Wall Street Journal takes David Brooks one step further, and openly says that Egypt needs an Augusto Pinochet.

Egyptians would be lucky if their new ruling generals turn out to be in the mold of Chile's Augusto Pinochet, who took power amid chaos but hired free-market reformers and midwifed a transition to democracy.

That leaves me pretty speechless.