Can there be an argument in favour of a military coup?

It’s a question that I asked my nemesis AI simply to show that I am not a bigot and that I can be unquestionably fair-minded.  Here was the response.

The question of whether there can be an argument in favour* (*American spelling corrected as this clearly has nothing at all to do with America) of a military coup is complex and often contentious. Military coups, where the military forcibly overthrows a civilian government, typically come with significant consequences—both positive and negative—depending on the context.

Here are some arguments that might be made in favour* (*as above) of a military coup:

1.     Restoration of Order in Times of Crisis: In situations where a country is experiencing political chaos, corruption, or civil unrest that leads to widespread instability, proponents of military coups might argue that the military is the only institution capable of restoring order and ensuring the survival of the state. If a government is seen as incapable of maintaining law and order, a coup could be viewed as a necessary step to prevent anarchy or total collapse.

2.     Protection of National Interests: If a civilian government is perceived to be pursuing policies that are detrimental to national security or the economic well-being of the country, some might argue that a military coup could be justified in order to safeguard national interests. This argument often hinges on the idea that the military is more focused on protecting the country from both external and internal threats than elected officials who may be distracted by short-term political goals or corruption.

3.     Preventing Authoritarian Rule: Ironically, some military coups are justified on the grounds of protecting democracy. If a civilian government is seen as veering toward authoritarianism, disregarding constitutional norms, or becoming increasingly corrupt and inept, supporters of a coup may argue that the military intervention is a last resort to preserve the democratic order. This type of argument often appeals to the idea that the military is acting in the best interest of the people, even if it means temporarily suspending democratic processes.

4.     Support for Economic Stability: In some cases, military leaders argue that civilian governments have mismanaged the economy to such an extent that the country faces a real risk of economic collapse. Proponents of a coup might assert that military leadership, with its focus on discipline and order, can implement the economic reforms necessary to restore stability and address corruption.

5.     Historical Precedents: In certain countries with a history of military involvement in politics, military coups may be seen as part of a tradition of intervention when civilian governments fail. Supporters might argue that the military is a stabilizing force and that past coups, while controversial, led to positive changes or prevented even worse outcomes.

Ethical and Practical Considerations

It is important to note that these arguments are often highly contested, and history shows that military coups can lead to long-term instability, authoritarian rule, human rights abuses, and violence. While some coups may initially seem to restore order, they often end up undermining democratic processes and may not deliver on their promises of reform. Furthermore, military leaders are not always better equipped to govern effectively than civilian leaders.

Ultimately, the justifications for a military coup depend on the specific circumstances, but the consequences can be far-reaching, and there is no guarantee that the desired outcomes will be achieved. In general, most political scientists and advocates of democratic governance would argue against military coups, advocating for political solutions, dialogue, and institutional reforms instead.

That was the entirety of the answer and I myself would say that it’s a very fair and even-handed summary of the pros and cons.  Even so I think that there will on occasion be cases where the complexity reduces to nothing much to discuss and any sensible person reading the Ethical and Practical Considerations section will very likely see the flip side of most if not all of those particular warnings.  As for the contentiousness part I would tend to agree with my inclusive brethren there to the extent that we must give every help and support possible to those struggling with mental issues* (*my apologies if that phrase is no longer appropriate but that also I think will “depend on the specific circumstances”).

Well I never!  Who on earth would have thought that AI and I could be friends?

Footnote:  Reader please be aware that I know absolutely nothing about this and take no responsibility whatsoever for it.  The words contained in the above advice have been generated by artificial means orchestrated and indirectly produced by those with far bigger brains (and bank accounts) than mine and my only comment would be to say that I for one admire them for their honesty and integrity in this instance at least.