Doctoral Dissertation Research: Coup-Proofing Democracy

Princeton University, Princeton NJ

Investigators

Abstract

After the Arab Spring, both Egypt and Tunisia attempted to transition to democracy. Egypt's transition quickly collapsed in a military coup, while Tunisia remains on the path to democratic consolidation. Why? More generally, why do some democratic transitions fall to military coups, while others do not? While existing literature focuses on the opportunity for a coup that is created through economic recessions and political polarization, this dissertation instead highlights the military's will to seize that opportunity. This project examines how the military was treated in the regime prior to democracy will shape whether it gains or loses from democracy, and thus whether it stages a coup or supports the transition. This approach is tested through case studies of Egypt and Tunisia, a survey experiment of military officers, and a statistical analysis of all democratic transitions. Why do some militaries stage coups against nascent democracies while others do not? This project argues that the military's decision to thwart or accept a democratic transition is shaped by its former autocrat's coup-proofing strategy. Militaries are more likely to obstruct democratization when they had historically been coopted by their autocrats through a share of power or shared identity, and thus lose their privileged positions under democracy. By contrast, militaries should be more supportive of democratization when they had historically been marginalized, fragmented, and counterbalanced by their autocrats, and thus gain from democracy. This project examines this theory through case studies of Egypt and Tunisia, drawing upon nearly 100 interviews and a survey experiment of military officers. It then probes the generalizability of the theory through a cross-national analysis of all democratic transitions between 1783-2016. This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.