As the crisis in Venezuela continues, talk of regime change has risen. Some want to see the US help remove President Maduro from power and bring in a new leader, Juan Guaidó, who is being recognized by a growing number of nations. But the idea of a policy to topple another nation’s leadership is fraught with moral, legal, and practical issues.
First, it’s important to recognize that regime change is a major departure from the principle of Westphalian sovereignty. If a nation’s leaders are committing atrocities against their people, there needs to be significant organized domestic opposition, and ideally an alternative to provide legitimacy. That’s why regime change is such a risky proposition.
Even if the US can identify a domestic force or coalition that wants to replace an incumbent regime, it’s difficult to know when that change will happen and what form the new order might take. The most successful transitions have been those where the incumbent’s mistakes or external pressures force a change, but there are many cases in which such disruptions do not lead to democracy. Moreover, even when they do, they tend to produce other forms of instability and conflict.
Scholars have offered a number of explanations for how and why regime change happens. They range from macro-processes that shape a nation’s predisposition toward one type of governance to micro-events that serve as triggers. Two families of arguments have been particularly influential. One, exemplified by books like “Bitter Fruit” and the more scholarly The CIA in Guatemala, suggests that the US seeks regime change to protect its commercial interests. The other, exemplified by the CIA’s role in overthrowing Mohammad Mosaddegh in 1953 and supporting dictators throughout Latin America, views regime change as a necessary tool of countering communism.
About the Author
