The Extent of Military Involvement in Nonviolent, Civilian Revolts and Their Aftermath

This chapter analyzes the role of the military’s position in the outcomes of civilian uprisings and revolutions. Civilian protest campaigns (or revolutions) that appear to drive autocrats from office are dramatic affairs. However, in most cases it is not civilian protestors alone who can be credited for the regime change outcome. The military are significant veto players. They can work to keep autocrats in office, they can support the civilian uprisings, or they can participate in some negotiated compromise that may be worked out. Whatever the case, the authors contend that the more significant and overt the military role in these affairs, the less likely it is that the post-revolutionary outcome is democratic in nature. How and to what extent they play a role is assessed through an investigation of 36 nonviolent, civilian revolts that brought about successful regime change since 1945. In each case, we measure, albeit crudely, the breadth of civilian participation and the nature of the military involvement. These indicators are then compared with democratization levels five and ten years after the nonviolent, civilian revolt. We find that protest campaigns can certainly bring down regimes, but in most cases, only if the military permits it. When the military is least involved in toppling the regime, the new subsequent regime is likely to be more democratic. When the military is highly involved, the nature of the new regime is predictably less democratic.