The conventional wisdom in Washington is that regime change is a powerful tool for spreading democracy and advancing American security. Yet these policies rarely achieve the benefits they promise, and their high costs often outweigh the potential gains.
The reasons for this are manifold. First, the effort to overthrow a government generally creates chaos and violence. Second, it can harm local populations. Third, it often requires substantial time and money to establish the new government’s legitimacy. To do so, it must be recognized by a large number of countries and have a credible leader in place (e.g., Guaido in Venezuela).
What is more, forcibly overthrowing a foreign government often fails to address what happens afterward. As a result, the new government may suffer from popular disillusionment and even be overrun by violent extremists. Moreover, foreign interveners often lack the cultural understanding and social skills necessary to fashion an order that is genuinely rooted in local society and aspires to be legitimated by the people they claim to serve.
The overuse of regime change also sabotages other, more effective tools for spreading democracy and advancing America’s security interests. It also undermines the credibility of American policymakers and drives distrust among international partners, which could hamstring US goals abroad. Finally, covert regime change operations can be a catalyst for civil war and international conflict. For example, when the CIA sought to overthrow Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba of Congo-Leopoldville in 1960, it used propaganda and activism to promote anti-Lumumba sentiments in the country.
About the Author
