Contemporary autocrats recognize the necessity of appearing democratic—at least in the beginning. However, while they engage in elaborate maneuvers to project an image of democratic legitimacy, they are quick to exploit their authority to undermine the rule of law. They do not explicitly announce their intention to extinguish democracy; instead, they erode it subtly, piece by piece, day by day, dismantling what they feign to uphold. This represents a coup d’état unfolding gradually.
A coup d’état is defined as the unlawful assumption of power through violent or unconstitutional means. The archetypal coup resembles a political earthquake, marked by dramatic scenes of tanks on the streets or aircraft assaulting the presidential palace. In contrast, self-coups are a variant where democratically elected leaders utilize their authority to disassemble the institutional framework and entrench their power.
The latest example of a self-coup occurred in South Korea and ultimately failed. In December of last year, President Yoon Suk-yeol declared martial law, consolidating all state control under his authority. However, he did not secure sufficient backing from the military, legislature, judiciary, or the public. His endeavor collapsed, and Yoon ended up imprisoned. Generally, self-coups tend to fail when led by weak leaders. A similar instance involved Pedro Castillo, the democratically elected leader of Peru, who attempted to dissolve Congress in December 2022 without adequate institutional or military support, leading to his imprisonment.
Self-coups can succeed when the leader executing them relies on force. A notable case is former Peruvian President Alberto Fujimori, who, in 1992, while in office, dissolved Congress and governed by emergency decree with backing from the armed forces and intelligence services. At the same time, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan has manipulated institutions and weakened the rule of law, yet has been cautious not to be characterized as a dictator.
Instances of self-coups are on the rise. According to a comprehensive dataset compiled by political scientists John Chin, David Carter, and Joe Wright, one-third of the 46 attempted self-coups since 1945 have occurred in the past decade. Alarmingly, while only half of “traditional” coups since 1945 have succeeded, over four out of five self-coups initiated by democratically elected leaders have been effective.
Another contributing factor to the viability of self-coups is the toxic combination of the three major ills of our political epoch: populism, polarization, and post-truth dynamics. This trio is creating an ideal environment for self-coups to flourish.
Populism fractures society into the “true people” and the “corrupt elite” that exploits them, thereby legitimizing extreme actions against institutions that are perceived as misaligned with the people’s will. Polarization transforms political opponents into irreconcilable foes, diminishing cooperative efforts to safeguard democracy. Meanwhile, post-truth dynamics enable leaders to fabricate alternative narratives that rationalize their undemocratic actions and confound voters.
The most concerning aspect of this combination is how it neutralizes citizens who would typically defend democracy. When a leader from one faction attacks institutions, supporters often rationalize it as “necessary” due to “threats” posed by the opposite side. As a result, followers of a leader may support measures that undermine democratic frameworks, believing it serves the greater good. Even well-informed and civic-minded citizens can unwittingly endorse a gradual self-coup as long as it is led by someone from “their side.”
A significant question raised by the statistics surrounding the success of self-coups is whether the United States can escape this global trend. More specifically, it is pertinent to question whether U.S. President Donald Trump is already intentionally undermining American democracy. Were the events of January 6, 2021, at the Capitol a rehearsal or a failed attempt unlikely to recur? Are the sweeping dismantling of federal institutions executed by Trump and Elon Musk’s teams irreversible? How permanent are these alterations?
In principle, democracy is designed to ensure the protection of civil and political rights, which are often infringed upon when the executive branch exhibits an insatiable thirst for power. In democracies, constitutions, laws, and legal precedents play a crucial role in preventing any branch from acquiring absolute power.
In the United States, these principles, regulations, and institutions are being challenged in various ways. Some of these challenges are overtly visible to the public, such as Trump’s attempts to defund government agencies and programs that hinder his agenda. Others are less apparent. For instance, Trump’s decision to attack the law firms representing individuals and institutions suing his administration involves revoking security clearances for lawyers engaged in these lawsuits and restricting their access to federal buildings, alongside initiating the process of rescinding government contracts with those firms.
Democracy encompasses not only election day but also the actions taken throughout a presidential term. It is precisely during these intervals that attempts at self-coups begin to take root, often supported by citizens who—blinded by polarization, populism, and post-truth narratives—applaud the erosion of democratic values.
This post is part of FP’s ongoing coverage of the Trump administration. Follow along here.
