Regime change is the effort to forcibly remove a government that is seen as hostile to the United States or other outside interests. The policy is often justified on the basis that it will achieve a political objective more cheaply and quickly than other foreign policies and will not escalate into a broader military conflict. In the wake of high-profile failures, however, regime change advocates must confront two fundamental challenges: First, forcible regime change is rarely quick or easy and always expensive. Second, regime change can have long-term consequences that far outweigh any short-term benefits for U.S. security and economic interests.
The goal of regime change is typically either to spread democracy or advance American economic interests. The Trump administration has downgraded democracy promotion in its foreign policy, but it continues to discuss regime change in Venezuela and elsewhere.
Many factors can trigger regime change, including a country’s level of economic development and the presence of social movements or other opposition groups that can mobilize and organize protests. Other possible causes are high levels of economic inequality and other sources of popular discontent, such as corruption or a decline in the legitimacy of the regime.
Some scholars have offered macro and micro accounts of regime change. The macro-argument argues that countries have different institutions because of differences in their economic development; the micro-argument suggests that changes in the social and political environment can also lead to regime change. But neither approach explains everything. The key is that both the macro-processes and the micro-events need to be in place at the right time for a regime change to happen.
About the Author
