The Technique of the Self-Coup d'Etat
The type of coup d'état which, by far, has the greatest chance of success is the self-coup led by the leader himself. Its success rate seems to reach 80%. Its antecedents are literally august, since it was by a self-coup that the Roman imperial regime was born under the name of Principate, Octavian becoming Augustus, having gathered in his hand all the powers without changing any of them. History has kept an indulgent eye on the first emperor of Rome, who thus put an end to the civil wars. It is not so forgiving of the chancellor who crushed Weimar, the most democratic of the European republics, with an iron fist. The die is now rolling on the judgment that will be passed on Donald Trump's second attempt.
The particularly high success rate of self-inflicted coups is easily explained. The rebel already holds the executive powers that he only intends to remove from all control. Since the limitation is of a legal nature, whether it emanates from the courts or from a parliament that does not have armed executors under its direct orders, it is sufficient for the rebel to render the injunctions inoperative by executing none of them, except those that suit him. The most powerful obstacle is naturally the loyalist elements of the army. But as these are morally inhibited by the rules of obedience of the very constitution they seek to defend, the resulting hesitation gives the rebel the opportunity to decapitate their general staff and mobilize the forces loyal to him. Society, often fragmented, finds itself unable to effectively counter the armed forces, unless it manages to provoke a turnaround in which the latter change sides. The unrest caused by the initial revolts is, in any case, used to justify the implementation of emergency measures, thus completing the process. All that remains is to rid the courts and parliamentary assemblies of the opposition they contain, through dismissals, suspensions or the appointment of new members, to complete the legal sanction of the new regime.
In his famous 1931 work, “Coup d'État: The Technique of Revolution”, Curzio Malaparte catalogued the general procedures of the coup d'état. However, only a small part is appropriate for the self-coup. Thus, control of key infrastructures is already assured to the rebel who occupies the seats of government. He already has sufficient control of the media to carry out the essential discrediting of the opposing forces accused of corruption or conspiracy. He can remotely encourage groups of violent supporters capable of intimidating opponents, through physical threats or political threats related to their re-election. He can also give substance to the prospect of legal proceedings on the basis of ad hoc cases brought against them.
The other methods listed by Malaparte are not appropriate. For example, the mobilization of revolutionary masses must be excluded, because a self-coup is an act of government and not an uprising. More generally, Malaparte insists on the need to “destroy the state from the outside”, whereas the self-coup captures the state from the inside. This fundamental difference implies an opposing attitude towards bureaucracy. While bureaucracies offer revolutionaries the main leverage for their seizure of power, not having to rebuild them but simply to intimidate them by purging them of hostile elements, bureaucracies could, on the other hand, oppose their inertia to the perpetrator of an autocoup. Thus, D. Trump has made it a priority to eliminate or render powerless all administration centers likely to obey designs foreign to his own. By entrusting the task of this neutralization to a libertarian militia, he is trying to pass the operation off as a measure of good management of public funds, which may also be supported by people who are not necessarily all in favor of carrying out a coup d'état.
Another key difference concerns the dual issue of absolute secrecy and speed of execution. Autocoups often seek to preserve the appearance of legality through emergency decrees and reforms, rendering unnecessary the clandestine approach advocated by Malaparte, with secrecy only concerning the final objective, which can be denied until the end. Another way for the rebel to achieve surprise is to present his coup d'état as a legitimate interpretation of the original constitutional order, and to move through the stages decisively but gradually.
This is the path taken by all illiberal regimes, the end result of which is “democrature”. The formal appearances of democracy are preserved. Democracy, deprived of its second pillar, the rule of law and the separation of powers, is presented as the expression of the popular will by a charismatic leader. The latter is not always forced to stuff the ballot boxes, preferring to fill them with propaganda and eliminate opponents by discrediting them, silencing the press that supports them and taking legal action against them. Paradoxically, it is in the name of freedom of expression that the leader most often mobilizes the attack against the intellectual centers of the opposition, whether it be the universities or the press, because effective democracy requires controls on the reality of facts and acts, whereas the “democrature” on the contrary calls for a free distortion of legal norms and motivations. This system admits several degrees, from V. Putin to V. Orban. The former imposes control of his security services on all sectors of society, and no longer risks losing an election. The latter is more constrained to honor the international agreements signed by his country, in order to preserve the economic advantages to which they give rise.
The case of D. Trump is particularly delicate, since his self-coup takes place within the framework of the constitution reputed, not without reason, to be the most robust in the world. As I write these lines, it is hanging by a thread, that of a dozen Republican parliamentarians and two conservative members of the Supreme Court whose existential choice will determine the fate of the United States, by tipping the required majorities in or out. If they oppose the coup, the rebel will have to submit or take the decisive but perilous step of open unconstitutionality. If they give up, it will mean the end of one of the most prestigious democracies in history.
The surrender began during the first term, when the attempt to take the Capitol was stopped but not punished. The new phase was meticulously orchestrated over four years, with the help of intellectuals expressly hostile to democracy, tycoons aspiring to run the nation as a business, i.e. according to a military model, and legislators persuaded that what they believe to be the will of God takes precedence over the choices of men. The crucial moment arrived stealthily.
Hegel said that no constitution has ever been written, meaning that constitutional texts exist only through the spirit that animates them, not only among jurists, but also among the actors in the country's political life and culture as a whole. The United States has experienced recurring episodes of authoritarian tendencies. Nevertheless, the citizens are aware that the basis of their constitution is the separation of powers, the protection of the law and the preservation of civil liberties. The time has come for everyone to proclaim this publicly, each in their own way. Because the window of opportunity, during which the rebel still concentrates every day the powers that he arrogates to himself in defiance of the spirit of the institutions, will quickly close.