Basically title, because I saw an article from BBC that a few people tried to seize power in Germany. Do they get the power just by occupying the building? Do other states recognise this? What happens to the constitution and the law? Is is a lawless state while they create a new constitution?
In: 794
Occupying a building, usually a government building or symbol of power, is usually symbolic but can lead to very real consequences. Humans are social and hierarchical animals, so shows of power and dissent in prominent places can be powerful even if in isolation they may fail or seem immaterial.
First of all, it obviously signals there is dissent, and that this dissent is either within the government, a body integral to government control such as the military, or is being demonstrated by a body or organisation outside the levers of control but is audacious or powerful enough to show dissent within a location of the regime’s power. Weak attempts at coups may target just a few buildings in an impotent way, but co-ordinated or successful coups aim to seize and occupy multiple locations of power, or affect a small number of nodes of power in some decisive way. These are often military bases and installations, as well as government buildings, as they represent the rulers’ monopoly on violence and its ability to go-ordinate that violence, which human history has shown is more or less an invariable pillar of power – losing these to rebels signals a lack of control and perhaps even the military siding with the dissidents. Really if the military is against the government the coup will likely succeed if external intervention is not present. Likewise, interrupting the functions of a building that hosts some government function may be more than symbolic, and may hinder the government’s ability to function which leave it vulnerable.
Even symbolically, prominent politicians protesting through occupation signal that not only is the government not united, that it is weak and there are reasons for protest, but that the protestors are signalling they are proximate and willing to easily transfer power to themselves in a location that permits this.
Targeting a handful of areas decisively usually means targeting and removing powerful individuals within the government the rebels wish to stage a coup against. Killing or imprisoning a king, nobles, or more contemporaneously military and political leaders like high-ranking officers or politicians will lead to the collapse of the ruling faction that the rebels can exploit to attain power. It also removes the loci of counter-coups by taking away people who can act as figureheads or co-ordinate counter-coups, and placing locations that could be used to do-ordinate counter coups in the hands of the rebels. Palace coups are the classic example, where one faction in a royal court supplants another within a small but important location (usually the palace or capital). These are relatively bloodless but are at the heart of the ruling faction’s base of power and is usually where they live and work, so a coup within one building can still decapitate the ruling faction and allow the rebels to immediately install themselves at this physical and symbolic head of power. Palace coups often involve the royal bodyguard, since if the very people who must be trustworthy and required to protect the leader are treacherous there is no solid foundation for their power, and effective resistance by the guard usually mean a coup without its own superior source of violent threat will likely be destroyed by the guard within that small area.
On the less extreme end, occupying a symbol of power basically makes the ruling government or faction look weak since they cannot prevent open dissent on their doorstep. This show of weakness is often enough to galvanise decisive factions (the military, the press, the public) to in turn feel confident enough to express dissent, and either independently rebel or else back the original rebels wishing to stage the coup. It often places the military or police in a position where they are forced to act decisively; failing to act decisively signals the ruler’s impotence and the military’s incompetence or unwillingness to act. If the military are potent but find they do not want to act against the rebels this signals that they fundamentally will not support the ruler, so it is often more convenient there and then for the military to instead depose the ruler. If the re-taking of the prominent building is half-hearted or protracted it again signals weakness. The original instigators may fail to hold the building but they likely sacrifice themselves to make the regime look weak and thus ripe for later successful coups or rebellions. If they successfully hold the building they are basically signalling the government can’t stop them, and thus is powerless due to lack of support or it’s own impotence. Either way, it makes the government unable to resist coups, or at least look weak, and a weak government will usually in any case invite coups due to the unpopularity this will create combined with the perceived ease of the success of a coup.
Latest Answers