Whether you call it regime change, foreign intervention or military action, forcibly overthrowing a government is rarely quick or easy. According to Lindsey O’Rourke, an associate professor of government at Boston College and author of “Covert Regime Change,” during the Cold War alone, there were 64 instances of covert attempts to overthrow other countries’ governments, and only 39 of them resulted in U.S-backed forces assuming power.
While regime change is sometimes necessary, it’s a risky policy that should only be used when normal policy tools have been exhausted and if there are clear benefits to the nation. For example, if a country’s leadership is committing atrocities or the country has substantial organized domestic opposition, regime change might be necessary.
However, even the most well-intentioned regime change campaigns can create more problems than they solve. Often, they result in civil wars, mass killings and deteriorating relations with the United States. And even when regime change does succeed, it’s far from the quick and cheap option that policymakers imagine.
In a recent essay for Truth Social, political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt explain that pursuing regime change is usually a costly undertaking and often erodes two crucial norms that make our democracy work: mutual tolerance and institutional forbearance. In other words, when you try to change a country’s regime, you have to accept the legitimacy of its rivals—an act that is both difficult and dangerous. That’s why a successful regime change campaign typically involves significant economic, informational and other non-military operations.