I know there are differences between coup d’état, usurpation and revolution, but dictionary definitions don’t make these distinctions very clear and may not be to everyone’s satisfaction. From my reading a coup d’état is not necessarily violent, whereas usurpation is, I think. But then again it seems to have different interpretation. Revolution in terms of kingly rule is violent. I have searched a lot and have not found any clear definitions. Is there in fact any consensus? How would most medievalists scholars distinguish them in the context of 15th century England? What are the degrees (even if slight) between the words below.
I look forward to your feedback.
coup d’état
the sudden, forcible overthrow of a ruler, government, etc., sometimes with violence, by a small
group of people already having some political or military authority
usurpation
the act of usurping; esp., the unlawful or violent seizure of a throne, power, etc.
revolution
the overthrow or repudiation of a regime or political system by the governed
A coup can be* part of* a revolution or usurpation. It’s mostly** just the act of toppling the government**, but doesn’t really concern itself with who does it or the followup (although most often it’s the military).
Usurpation is mostly concerned with the legitimacy of the usurper, so most often comes up in the context of monarchies and concerns itself with replacement rulers. It’s usually the act of an individual or small group with a definite leader who is installed in place of the current one but often in the same or similar structure. - revolutions concern themselves with the populace (which, grant you, may include, or be headed by, nobility) and usually involve changing the structure of government.
I think revolution implies or claims something more than a change in the identity of the persons who control the levers of power. It suggests not a change of governors but a change in the whole system of government; perhaps even of the whole social order - so, the French Revolution, the Boshevik Revolution. Whereas coup d’etat is the opposite; the state and the social and political order are not fundamentally changed; control merely passes from one person or group to another, and the implication is that this has happened suddenly or unexpectedly; a change of control resulting from an election or from the death of the monarch and succession of the heir is not a coup d’etat.
Usurpation is similar to coup d’etat, I think, but it’s a pejorative term - it suggest or emphasises a lack of political legitimacy or legal authority in the seizure of power.
That isn’t true - often, a coup has been from a civilian government to a military junta or dictatorship. That’s a fundamental change in the State and political order.
Not necessarily. The institutions of the state, their functions, capacities, etc remain unchanged, as do the relationships between them. Even when there are politically signficant changes (like the suspension of effective democratic accountability) this is often [claimed to be] a temporary measure, until the normal democratic order can be restored.
The point, perhaps, is that a coup doesn’t inherently change anything other than the identity of the rulers - the replacement of one military junta with another is still a coup, for example - whereas such a change is inherent in the concept of a revolution.
Usurpation means to me they didn’t use direct methods ot take over …… or they use a excuse or puppet achieve their goals
sort of like how an mafia styled group would take over an area but not officially be the government whom they’ve bribed or blackmailed into submission…
Yes, necessarily, changing from civilian to military rule is a “fundamental change in the State”. How can it not be? Sure, yes, the bureaucracy below that layer may be unchanged. That’s irrelevant. How temporary it is is also irrelevant - while the junta is in charge, the State is changed.
And I specifically wasn’t including military junta replacing military junta, just military overthrow of civilian government.
Coup d’état focusses on a sudden, usually but not necessarily violent, change in government: sometimes it can be a leader already in post who decides to do this (e.g. Louis Napoleon Bonaparte), usually in the direction of less democracy and more autocracy, but it’s not impossible to imagine one moving in the other direction either from the top (though usually that’s too gradual to be a full coup) or from below (the Portuguese revolution of 1974).
Often, a coup is claimed to be forestalling a revolution,in order to preserve the existing social order. Sometimes, it doesn’t have the intended consequences and sets off an unforeseen wider chain of events.
Basically a coup is metaphorically a single blow that takes over the government. It’s usually over in a short period of time – often a single day. In order to act that fast, the military is usually involved: they seize the broadcast stations and the current leader and declare they’re in charge. It can be “bloodless,” which means that no one is killed. The people running the coup (often referred to as a junta) seize all power, though not necessarily by changing the system: a coup against a dictator just becomes “Meet the new boss. Same as the old boss.”
A revolution is a long-term change. It can take months or years to succeed or fail, and is more often led by citizens (though the military usually joins in). It nearly always results in a change in the governmental system.
A usurpation is what you call it if you’re on the losing side of a coup or revolution.
To me :
coup d’état = taking the power by force without ostensibly changing the system or at least the portrayal of the system (e.g. Napoléon taking over the Directoire - before crowning himself emperor that is ; or Hitler claiming extraordinary powers that did exist under the Weimar Republic then using those in perpetuity)
vs
revolution = overhauling the political system altogether (e.g. going from a monarchy to a republic or parliamentary monarchy, going from a colony to a sovereign nation etc…)
Usurpation IMO only applies when you’re taking the power of a single person - a king (e.g. by a regent who refuses to relinquish the throne), a mayor, a general, that kind of thing. You can’t usurp a parliament IMO, although you can usurp a parliamentary seat.
A ‘usurper’ is likely to be someone (an individual) who believes that they have more right to a position than the current holder. If they can get enough support, they may succeed in their wish to usurp the current incumbent.
Sort of… a usurpation is more the illegal assumption of a position of power- often in a monarchy, and often when the legitimate holder is weak, like say… a child.
King Louis-Phillipe of France usurped the French throne in 1830, even though Henri V was the rightful king, as the son of Charles X.
Revolutions and coups d’etat can overlap with each other and with usurpations- for example, usurpers often gain power as a result of coups d’etat and revolutions, and often coups d’etat happen as part of revolutions even when there are not usurpations (e.g. when the entire structure of government changes).
A more recent example of a leader carrying out a coup against his own government was the autogolpe (self-coup) by President Alberto Fujimori of Peru in 1992, in which he dissolved Congress and the judiciary and assumed all governmental powers himself with the support of the military.
Thank you PatrickLondon. Your definition of coup d’êtat is in line with how I have seen it used. Can you offer a good definition of usurpation? Is it as I understand it, a more violent variation of a coup without any essential change in government, perhaps involving only replacing an individual as opposed to a parliament?
Thanks UDS. Based on what most commenters have stated, usurpation differs from coup d’état in terms of legitimacy or legal authority. But can it really be said that coup d’états are legitimate? Surely its a political opinion. Would a Putsch be closer to usurpation than a coup d’état?
Not at all; usurpation is just taking some other person’s rightful power without their consent. This is usually in the context of a monarchy, but sometimes it’s things like the Papacy or other offices like that.
No, a coup (or a putsch, to refer to an earlier post - they’re the same concept in different languages) can be a usurpation, and a usurpation probably involves a coup, but the terms focus on different aspects of a change in government: “coup/putsch” focusses on the speed of the event, “usurpation” expresses a view on its legitimacy.
“Revolution” is more concerned with a wider sociopolitical change over the longer term.
But all, depending on the context of discussion, carry overtones of approval or disapproval. What General/Comrade X announces as a revolution of national renewal/workers’ paradise, the supporters of President/King Y will denounce as a coup/putsch/usurpation by thieves and robbers whose promises will turn out to be hollow.