The Lesser-Evil Coup: When Breaking the Chain of Command Prevented Greater Bloodshed

Full report

On this page

The subordination of the armed forces to sovereign or civilian leadership is the foundational premise of the modern state, engineered precisely to ensure that the state’s monopoly on violence is not turned inward against its own apparatus. The chain of command functions as the primary load-bearing structure of political stability. However, historical tipping points routinely emerge across dynastic, colonial, and modern geopolitical systems wherein the sovereign authority itself morphs into the primary engine of state destruction. Whether through catastrophic military adventurism, total economic annihilation, psychological instability, or the systematic, unconstrained slaughter of its own citizens, the ruler becomes the existential threat. In these acute, high-stakes crises, military officers and elite officialdom are forced into a devastating paradox: adhering to the legal chain of command guarantees widespread bloodshed or state collapse, while breaking it constitutes high treason and risks triggering civil war. The "lesser-evil coup" represents a highly specific typology of regime change that must be meticulously distinguished from opportunistic power grabs, ideological revolutions, or predatory mutinies. In a genuine lesser-evil scenario, the conspirators are motivated fundamentally by a triage-oriented logic. The deposition of the head of state is executed specifically as a preventive measure to avert an impending or ongoing catastrophe. This report conducts an exhaustive historical analysis of such interventions, circumventing the frequently analyzed mid-twentieth-century totalitarian and fascist models to focus instead on complex, often neglected examples from Latin American, African, Middle Eastern, Asian, and dynastic history. By deconstructing successful, aborted, and failed preventive coups, this analysis systematically evaluates the operational variables that determine outcomes. For each historical event, the analysis isolates the conspirators’ epistemological baseline (what they knew definitively), their risk assessments (what they feared would transpire), their institutional blueprints (the replacement government they envisioned), the cohesion of the armed forces during the execution, the presence or absence of civilian support, and the ultimate trajectory of violence. Furthermore, the analysis delineates the crucial distinction between authentic preventive interventions and predatory overthrows that are merely dressed in the cynical, ex post facto language of humanitarian salvation.

The Dynastic Imperative: State Preservation Against the Sovereign

In dynastic empires, the person of the monarch and the apparatus of the state are theoretically and legally indivisible. To move against the sovereign is to move against the state itself. Yet, when the monarch's incompetence, extravagance, or madness threatens the survival of the dynasty, the bureaucratic, military, and familial elites are forced to conceptually separate the ruler from the realm. In these instances, a coup is framed not as treason against the crown, but as the violent salvation of the throne from its current, destructive occupant.

The Deposition of Sultan Ibrahim the Mad and the Crisis of the Kafes (1648)

In the mid-seventeenth century, the Ottoman Empire was plunged into a structural and military crisis exacerbated by the erratic rule of Sultan Ibrahim I. Following a radical institutional reform to the Ottoman succession system known as Ekberiyet—which mandated that the eldest male of the dynasty inherit the throne, thereby eliminating the practice of fratricide but often leading to the accession of inexperienced or psychologically damaged princes—Ibrahim ascended the throne in 1640 after spending decades in the claustrophobic confinement of the Kafes (the cage)1. His reign was characterized by profound psychological instability, lavish and unprecedented expenditures on his harem, and a disastrous, largely unsuccessful naval assault on the Venetian-controlled island of Crete in 1645, an endeavor that crippled the Ottoman economy and exposed the military to ruinous attrition3. The plotters—principally the Valide Sultan (Empress Mother) Kösem Sultan, acting in concert with the Grand Vizier and the elite Janissary corps—possessed acute, intimate knowledge of the state's internal hemorrhage. They knew that Ibrahim’s eccentricities, which included his obsessive accumulation of wealth for his favored concubines while the treasury defaulted on military salaries, had severely eroded the empire's administrative capacity and alienated the ruling class5. More critically, they feared that the mounting Venetian military threat, combined with domestic uprisings and elite factionalism, would lead to the total collapse of the House of Osman. The loss of legitimacy was accelerating, threatening to plunge the empire into an anarchic civil war. To the conspirators, the principle of amanah (Islamic trust) mandated that political involvement by women and military elites was a legitimate mechanism for maintaining state stability when the sovereign failed1. The envisioned replacement was structural rather than revolutionary. Kösem Sultan planned to place Ibrahim’s six-year-old son, Mehmed IV, on the throne1. Because Mehmed was a minor, this configuration would legally empower Kösem Sultan to act as regent (Büyük Valide Sultan or Nâib-i-Saltanat), maintaining continuity and stability through a shadow government operated by the harem and the military elite, circumventing the young Sultan's ambitious mother, Turhan Sultan1. During the coup, the armed forces—specifically the highly trained, non-Muslim conscripts of the Janissary cavalry and the palace guards—remained highly unified, driven by shared economic grievances regarding their pay and bolstered by a fatwa obtained from the Sheikh-ul-Islam that justified the Sultan's removal1. Civilian support, represented by the bureaucratic elite and the religious establishment, was firmly behind the deposition, viewing it as a necessary corrective to an untenable tyranny. Following Ibrahim’s deposition and subsequent execution on August 18, 1648, the immediate violence of a broader civil war was averted1. However, the long-term stabilization was only partial; while the erraticism of Ibrahim was neutralized, the power vacuum resulted in intense elite infighting. This culminated in Kösem Sultan's assassination in 1651 by factions loyal to Turhan Sultan, a crisis that eventually necessitated the rise of the ruthless but stabilizing Köprülü viziers to restore total imperial order3.

The Fall of Sultan Abdulaziz and the Constitutional Promise (1876)

Over two centuries later, the Ottoman Empire faced a decidedly modern existential threat. By 1876, the empire was widely designated the "Sick Man of Europe," buckling under massive foreign debt, administrative paralysis, and internal ethno-religious fracturing. The reform efforts of the Tanzimat (1839) and Islahat (1856) edicts had failed to prevent foreign intervention or satisfy domestic demands6. Sultan Abdulaziz had accrued ruinous foreign loans to finance extravagant palace construction and a bloated naval fleet, culminating in a devastating sovereign debt moratorium in 1875 that destroyed the empire's financial credibility in European capitals6. A highly organized cadre of reformist bureaucrats and military officers, led by Midhat Pasha and the Minister of War, Hussein Avni Pasha, orchestrated a sophisticated deposition6. This action was foreshadowed by earlier resistance movements, such as the 1859 Kuleli Incident orchestrated by the Fedailer Cemiyeti (Fedai Organization), which had previously attempted to utilize mass dissatisfaction to overthrow the administration6. The 1876 plotters knew definitively that the empire was financially paralyzed and that the ongoing anti-Ottoman rebellions in the Balkans—specifically in Herzegovina—were being actively armed and supported by foreign powers like Montenegro and Russia6. They deeply feared that if the autocratic, financially reckless Abdulaziz remained in power, the Great Powers of Europe would use the empire's insolvency and the Balkan uprisings as a pretext for the complete partition and colonial subjugation of Ottoman territories6. Unlike the 1648 deposition, which merely shuffled the dynastic deck within traditional parameters, Midhat Pasha’s replacement vision was profoundly modern and structural: the conspirators sought to install the Sultan’s nephew, Murad V. Murad was a man known for his liberal disposition, his high intelligence, and his secretive ties to the exiled nationalist-liberal Young Ottomans6. The plotters envisioned a transition from absolute monarchy to a constitutional state (which they eventually achieved briefly with the 1876 Constitution), hoping that democratization and the rule of law would placate European creditors, integrate non-Muslim minorities, and stave off imperial collapse6. The armed forces, directed flawlessly by Hussein Avni Pasha, remained entirely unified during the swift and bloodless encirclement of the Dolmabahçe Palace in May 18767. The coup enjoyed broad civilian support from the educated urban classes, the Young Ottomans, and conservative Muslims who resented the empire's economic subservience to Christian Europe, whose influence they felt was destroying the peasantry through taxation6. Initially, the coup successfully averted state collapse and was welcomed internationally. However, the psychological fragility of the new sovereign derailed the transition. Following the highly suspicious suicide of the deposed Abdulaziz and the retaliatory assassination of Hussein Avni Pasha by Abdulaziz's brother-in-law, Cherkez Hassan, Murad V suffered a severe, incurable mental collapse7. Deposed after just 93 days, Murad was replaced by Abdulhamid II, who ultimately suspended the constitution and ruled as an autocrat, demonstrating that a lesser-evil coup's success relies equally on removing the tyrant and on the psychological and institutional durability of the replacement7.

The Modernizing Monarchy: Averting Financial and Geopolitical Ruin

When the threat is not immediate massacre but slow, grinding state failure and geopolitical vulnerability, preventive coups often take the form of bloodless, legally sanctioned palace revolutions. These require a delicate negotiation of traditional, religious legitimacy to execute a modernizing, secular-adjacent agenda.

The Ouster of King Saud of Saudi Arabia (1964)

In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was facing a severe dual crisis of internal insolvency and external ideological assault. King Saud, who had inherited the throne in 1953, ruled with extreme fiscal extravagance, taking expensive European tours with massive entourages, which plunged the oil-rich nation into massive debt and dangerously destabilized the national currency10. Concurrently, the Arab Cold War was raging; Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser was actively exporting republican, socialist revolution across the Middle East, a movement that posed an existential threat to monarchical systems. Crown Prince Faisal, supported by a coalition of senior princes, Western-educated technocrats, and the highly influential religious establishment (the Ulama), possessed exact knowledge of the kingdom's precarious state10. Faisal knew that Saud's inability to manage the treasury, his reliance on traditional tribal alliances (such as the Al-Murra, Ajman, and Al-Dawasir) over modern statecraft, and his resistance to administrative modernization had alienated both the military and the public10. The conspirators feared that an economically bankrupt and administratively archaic Saudi Arabia would fall victim to a Nasserist military coup or a popular, anti-royalist revolution, leading to the eradication of the Al Saud dynasty and the fracturing of the state10. The replacement government envisioned by the plotters was one of structured, accelerated modernization firmly anchored within a conservative Islamic framework. Faisal had previously articulated a comprehensive ten-point reform plan in 1962, which included the creation of a constitution, the establishment of local government, the formation of an independent judiciary, the abolition of slavery, the provision of social security, and the rigorous regulation of economic enterprise10. The conspirators aimed to transition Saudi Arabia from a medieval, personalist fiefdom into a formalized, institutionalized modern state capable of surviving the twentieth century13. Because the plotters secured the legal and spiritual backing of the Ulama—who issued a decisive fatwa on November 2, 1964, authorizing the transfer of power—the armed forces, including the critical National Guard, remained completely unified behind Faisal10. Civilian support was robust, as the merchant class, the religious establishment, and emerging technocrats desired economic stability and legal predictability. The deposition was entirely bloodless10. Violence did not merely decrease; it was fundamentally preempted. Faisal’s subsequent reign (1964-1975) resulted in massive administrative centralization, the stabilization of the economy, the reorganization of the Central Planning Organization, and the introduction of the 1965 Companies Law, which established the Committee for the Settlement of Commercial Disputes based on modified Egyptian and French commercial codes10. This preemptive coup secured the kingdom's survival through a highly volatile geopolitical era.

Junior Officers and the Edge of the Abyss

While dynastic and palace coups are driven by high-ranking elites and royals, modern lesser-evil coups are frequently executed by mid-level or junior military officers. Stationed closer to the ground, these officers are often the very instruments of the sovereign's repression. Their mutiny stems from an acute, localized awareness that obeying orders will result in a national bloodbath, a communist takeover, or the destruction of the military's institutional honor.

El Salvador’s Reformist Coup (1979)

By late 1979, El Salvador was hurtling toward a catastrophic civil conflict. The military dictatorship of General Carlos Humberto Romero relied on horrific state repression to suppress a growing constellation of leftist guerrilla movements, trade unions, and mass civilian organizations. Government-aligned death squads and security forces routinely massacred protesters; in March 1979, helicopters fired on striking brewery workers, and in May, police killed 23 unarmed demonstrators on the steps of the Metropolitan Cathedral of San Salvador15. The plotters—a group of progressive junior and mid-level officers known as the Juventud Militar (Military Youth Movement), led by Colonel Adolfo Arnoldo Majano—knew that Romero's reliance on state terror and oligarchic protection was rapidly radicalizing the populace and swelling the ranks of the Marxist insurgencies15. They feared a direct repetition of the Nicaraguan Revolution, where the Sandinistas had just overthrown the Somoza dictatorship in July 197915. The United States shared this fear; State Department officials Viron P. Vaky and William G. Bowdler had visited El Salvador, warning that the country was the most likely in Central America to collapse to communism if Romero remained15. If Romero stayed in power, the junior officers feared the total collapse of the Salvadoran state, a full-scale revolution, and a resulting bloodbath15. On October 15, 1979, the Juventud Militar launched a bloodless coup, successfully deposing Romero and forcing his loyalist generals into exile15. Their envisioned replacement was unprecedented for the country: the Revolutionary Government Junta (JRG), a hybrid civilian-military administration19. Col. Majano and Col. Jaime Abdul Gutiérrez partnered with highly respected moderate civilians representing a broad coalition known as the Foro Popular, including Guillermo Manuel Ungo (a social democrat), Román Mayorga Quirós (rector of the Catholic University), Mario Antonio Andino (representing progressive business), and later Héctor Dada Hirezi16. The JRG immediately published La Proclama, heavily influenced by Jesuit intellectual Ignacio Ellacuría, promising radical structural changes: agrarian reform (beginning with Decree 43, freezing large landholdings), the nationalization of banking, an end to human rights abuses, the dissolution of the paramilitary group ORDEN, and a general amnesty for political prisoners16. However, the defining failure of this lesser-evil coup was the fatal lack of unity within the armed forces. While the junior officers envisioned genuine reform, conservative senior military officers—most notably Col. Gutiérrez and Minister of Defense José Guillermo García, along with National Guard director Carlos Eugenio Vides Casanova—quickly co-opted the coup to protect their institutional prerogatives and alliances with the oligarchy15. Civilian support was initially strong but highly conditional. Archbishop Óscar Romero cautiously backed the coup, hoping it would bring justice16. But because the armed forces remained deeply fractured, the right-wing elements of the military intensified their death squad activities, massacring students, workers, and peasants despite the presence of progressive civilians on the Junta15. The military committed horrific atrocities, including the Sumpul River massacre and later the El Mozote and El Calabozo massacres19. By January 1980, the civilian members of the JRG resigned in mass protest of the military's continuing state terror20. Ultimately, violence did not decrease; it exploded exponentially. The failure of the reformist coup eliminated the political center, plunging El Salvador into a brutal twelve-year civil war that claimed over 75,000 lives15. Majano was eventually ousted in December 1980 and exiled, his preventive coup tragically transformed into a catalyst for the very conflagration he sought to prevent21.

Military-Civilian Synergy: The Defection Model

A highly effective variation of the lesser-evil coup occurs when military defection merges symbiotically with a mass civilian uprising. This creates a synergy that can bloodlessly paralyze a regime, neutralizing the state's monopoly on violence without firing a shot.

The Philippines and the EDSA Defection (1986)

In the Philippines in February 1986, the two-decade kleptocratic dictatorship of Ferdinand Marcos was faltering following the 1983 assassination of opposition leader Ninoy Aquino and the blatantly fraudulent snap presidential elections of 198622. Minister of National Defense Juan Ponce Enrile and Armed Forces Vice Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Fidel Ramos were fundamentally aware that Marcos’s chief military enforcer, Gen. Fabian Ver—feared as a ruthless commander who would mercilessly purge the officer corps—was preparing to arrest and eliminate them, along with the reformist officers of the RAM (Reform the Armed Forces Movement) led by Col. Gregorio "Gringo" Honasan22. This plot was initially organized as the "God Save the Queen Plot"25. The plotters feared their own imminent execution, but more broadly, as millions of civilians gathered in protest on Epifanio de los Santos Avenue (EDSA), they feared that Ver would order the military to massacre the unarmed populace to maintain Marcos's grip on power22. The envisioned replacement government quickly evolved from a military junta into a full transition of power to Corazon Aquino, the legitimate winner of the fraudulent election, representing a return to constitutional democracy22. The defining feature of this crisis was the behavior of the armed forces. The military fractured, but importantly, it did not do so violently. When Marcos and Ver ordered loyalist marine and armor units to fire mortars and artillery into the civilian crowds protecting Enrile and Ramos at Camp Crame, the loyalist commanders explicitly refused24. As one armor commander stated, he defied the legal chain of command because "too many innocent people would be killed"24. Civilian support was the defining variable; over two million citizens, mobilized by the Catholic Church under the leadership of Cardinal Jaime Sin and Cardinal Ricardo Vidal, acted as a human shield22. Because the military mutineers and the civilian populace acted in absolute synergy, and because even loyalist troops refused to inflict mass casualties, violence decreased to zero. The lesser-evil mutiny forced Marcos into exile in Hawaii, preventing a national bloodbath and successfully restoring democracy22.

Sudan’s Transitional Coup (1985)

A parallel synergy occurred in Sudan a year prior. In April 1985, the authoritarian regime of Gaafar Nimeiry was facing massive popular uprisings and civil strikes across Khartoum due to severe economic mismanagement and draconian policies. The military, led by Lieutenant General Abdel Rahman Swar al-Dahab, knew the country was paralyzed and feared that suppressing the civilian uprising would require immense bloodshed and plunge the nation into total civil collapse. To avert this, Swar al-Dahab orchestrated a bloodless coup, deposing Nimeiry while he was out of the country26. Crucially, the replacement government was a transitional military council designed expressly to hand power back to civilians. Swar al-Dahab adhered to his promise, organizing elections and transferring power to a civilian prime minister the following year. Although Sudan’s democracy was later overthrown in 1989 by Omar al-Bashir, the 1985 intervention stands as a successful, short-term preventive coup that avoided a massacre and briefly restored civilian rule27.

The African Democratic Transition: Soldiers as Midwives

In post-colonial Africa, the military has frequently been the primary vehicle for entrenching authoritarianism. However, in distinct instances, military officers have broken the chain of command specifically to rescue the population from a dictator's final, violent spasms, subsequently engineering a successful transition to civilian rule.

Mali’s March Revolution (1991)

Mali provides perhaps the most structurally perfect example of a successful lesser-evil coup, followed by a cautionary tale of its long-term decay. By 1991, the West African nation had suffered for 23 years under the military dictatorship of General Moussa Traoré28. Traoré’s regime, the single-party Mali People's Democratic Union (UDPM), was characterized by severe economic contraction, pervasive corruption, and a stubborn refusal to allow multiparty democracy, despite the sweeping democratic movements occurring across the continent29. In early 1991, massive pro-democracy demonstrations erupted in Bamako, organized by the Alliance for Democracy in Mali (ADEMA), the Association of Students and Pupils of Mali (AEEM), and various labor groups28. Traoré responded with characteristic brutality, declaring a state of emergency and ordering the military to open fire on unarmed, nonviolent protesters. Over a period of several days, soldiers killed well over one hundred civilians, including children28. The plotters, led by Lieutenant Colonel Amadou Toumani Touré (commander of the parachute forces), knew definitively that Traoré intended to drown the pro-democracy movement in blood to maintain power28. They feared that continued obedience to Traoré’s orders would result in the mass slaughter of the Malian youth and the total collapse of the nation's social fabric, leading to ungovernable riots and the irrevocable destruction of the military's remaining institutional honor28. The replacement government envisioned by Touré was strictly transitional. Unlike dictators who seize power to hold it, Touré immediately announced the suspension of the constitution and the formation of the Transitional Committee for the Salvation of the People (CTSP), integrating pro-democracy civilian leaders into the junta28. He explicitly promised he would neither run for president nor retain power once a president was democratically elected28. The armed forces, having grown increasingly demoralized and disgusted by the order to massacre their own citizens, unified rapidly behind Touré. A full-scale mutiny swept the ranks as thousands of soldiers put down their arms and joined the protesters28. Civilian support was overwhelming; the military was viewed as a liberator working in perfect tandem with civil society32. The violence, which had peaked during Traoré's crackdown, plummeted immediately after the March 26 coup33. Touré honored his commitments: the CTSP legalized opposition parties, organized a National Conference, drafted a new constitution approved by referendum, and held free multiparty parliamentary and presidential elections in 199228. Alpha Oumar Konaré, a civilian academic and leader of ADEMA, was elected president, and Touré voluntarily relinquished power, retreating from politics28. This intervention prevented a staggering loss of life and successfully midwifed a democratic republic that stood as a model in West Africa, eventually culminating in a peace pact with Tuareg rebels celebrated at the "Flamme de la Paix" in Timbuktu in 199631.

The Decay of Consensus: Mali’s "Accidental Coup" (2012)

However, the legacy of 1991 illustrates that the success of a lesser-evil coup can degrade if the subsequent democratic institutions rot from within. Amadou Toumani Touré returned to politics and was democratically elected president in 200229. By 2012, Touré’s administration—characterized by a "rule by consensus"—had degenerated into what critics termed a "sham democracy"31. The political system suppressed debate, corruption and narcotics trafficking flourished, judges sold verdicts, and the military was left ill-equipped to handle a renewed Tuareg insurgency in the north31. The public had lost faith in the rule of law to the point of reviving "Article 320"—the horrific practice of burning accused thieves alive in the streets31. In March 2012, a mutiny by low-ranking soldiers led by Captain Amadou Haya Sanogo occurred. The soldiers originally intended to protest Touré's handling of the northern rebellion, but when they encountered no resistance at the presidential palace, they accidentally executed a coup, filling the power vacuum31. Sanogo and his junta claimed they were acting to save Mali's democracy from Touré's corruption. But unlike 1991, this intervention lacked a cohesive replacement vision, institutional backing, or a clear roadmap to civilian rule31. Consequently, the state collapsed entirely. The military fractured, foreign donors froze aid, and jihadist and Tuareg insurgents captured the northern half of the country, proving that a coup initiated without institutional soundness and civilian synergy will destroy the state, regardless of the plotters' stated intentions29.

The Survivalist Mutiny: Ancient and Imperial Precedents

It is crucial to distinguish the institutionally minded lesser-evil coup from the pure survivalist mutiny. In the latter scenario, the sovereign's erratic violence poses such a direct, localized threat to the lives of the military elite that they break the chain of command purely to save themselves. While this action stops the sovereign's immediate tyranny, the lack of a viable civilian replacement vision often triggers the very systemic collapse the plotters feared.

Rome and the Assassination of Caligula (41 AD)

In 41 AD, the Roman Emperor Gaius (Caligula) was assassinated by members of his own Praetorian Guard, a pivotal event that brutally exposed the fictional nature of the Roman Senate's lingering authority. Caligula’s brief reign had initially been celebrated, as he offered tax remissions, published imperial accounts, and distributed money42. However, following a severe illness, his rule degenerated into a volatile mix of financial extortion, arbitrary treason (maiestas) executions, and the deliberate, theatrical humiliation of the Roman elite, including forcing senators to run alongside his chariot and allegedly planning to make his horse a consul43. The conspirators, centered around Cassius Chaerea, a seasoned tribune of the Praetorian Guard, knew that Caligula's paranoia and sadism were unrestrained44. Chaerea himself had been subjected to relentless sexual slander and public mockery by the emperor, who forced the veteran soldier to use humiliating, effeminate passwords44. The plotters, which included several senators, feared that Caligula was systematically dismantling the aristocracy and that their own executions were inevitable44. However, the envisioned replacement government was fatally fractured. The senatorial conspirators wished to restore the Roman Republic, erasing the Principate entirely44. Cassius Chaerea and the Praetorian Guard, conversely, recognized that their elevated status, political influence, and lucrative pay depended entirely on the existence of an emperor. When the assassination occurred on January 24, 41 AD, the armed forces were deeply divided. While the conspirators killed Caligula, other factions of the Praetorian Guard discovered Caligula's uncle, Claudius, hiding behind a curtain in the palace43. They spontaneously proclaimed him emperor, motivated largely by Claudius's promise of a massive financial donative of 15,000 sesterces per man43. Civilian support among the general populace was highly ambivalent; the urban plebs largely mourned Caligula, who had provided them with games and financial relief42. While the assassination prevented the further execution of senators, it failed as a systemic corrective. The Senate, debating the restoration of the Republic, found itself violently outmaneuvered by the military and capitulated to Claudius44. The coup established a disastrous historical precedent: it proved that the Praetorian Guard possessed the unilateral, mercenary power to make and unmake emperors, ensuring centuries of military instability.

The Sui Dynasty and the Jiangdu Incident (618 AD)

A similarly catastrophic survivalist mutiny occurred in China at the twilight of the Sui Dynasty. Emperor Yang (Sui Yangdi) had exhausted the empire through megalomaniacal public works, most notably the Grand Canal, and a series of devastating, failed military campaigns against the kingdom of Goguryeo48. By 618 AD, massive agrarian rebellions were sweeping the country, the treasury was drained, and rival warlords, including Li Yuan (the future founder of the Tang Dynasty), were actively carving up the empire48. Emperor Yang fled to the southern city of Jiangdu (modern Yangzhou), isolating himself with his elite Xiaoguo Army49. The plotters, led by the general Yuwen Huaji, knew definitively that the empire was lost and that the capital had fallen to rebels48. The soldiers of the Xiaoguo Army were predominantly northern men, desperate to return to their homes and families, but the Emperor, prone to paranoid defensiveness, refused to move and executed anyone who delivered bad news about the rebellions48. The plotters feared that staying in Jiangdu meant they would either be slaughtered by the encroaching rebel armies or arbitrarily executed by the increasingly detached, delusional emperor. The replacement vision was nonexistent beyond immediate survival and escape. Upon murdering Emperor Yang, Yuwen Huaji installed the emperor's nephew, Yang Hao, as a disposable puppet52. Huaji's actual goal was simply to command the army's retreat north48. The armed forces were briefly unified in the desperate act of regicide, but fragmented immediately afterward as discipline collapsed. There was no civilian support; the peasantry was already in open revolt against the state48. The coup completely failed to decrease violence. Instead, by removing the central dynastic figure, Yuwen Huaji merely added his own rogue, plundering army to the chaotic, multi-sided civil war. He was eventually defeated and executed, and the bloodshed continued unabated until the Tang Dynasty achieved total military supremacy48.

Distinguishing the Lesser-Evil Coup from the Humanitarian Pretext

To maintain analytical rigor, the genuine lesser-evil coup—where the threat of mass violence is real and immediate (as in Mali or the Philippines)—must be sharply distinguished from predatory power grabs that deliberately manufacture humanitarian pretexts to justify illegal regime change.

The Counter-Example: Chile and the Myth of "Plan Z" (1973)

The September 11, 1973 coup in Chile, led by General Augusto Pinochet against the democratically elected socialist government of Salvador Allende, represents the quintessential exploitation of the lesser-evil narrative54. In the immediate aftermath of the violent overthrow—during which the military deployed British-made Hawker Hunter jets to bomb the presidential palace (La Moneda), leading to Allende's suicide—the military junta faced intense domestic and international scrutiny for destroying one of Latin America's oldest democracies54. To legitimize the breaking of the chain of command, the Pinochet regime published the White Book of the Change of Government in Chile59. The psychological centerpiece of this propaganda effort was "Plan Z," a fabricated conspiracy theory claiming that Allende’s government and associated leftist paramilitary groups were secretly preparing to execute a massive, coordinated slaughter of high-ranking military officers, opposition politicians, and journalists on Independence Day55. The military plotters claimed they "knew" an impending genocide of the political right was imminent, and that they acted solely to prevent state collapse and mass murder. In reality, Plan Z was a complete myth, amplified by propaganda units like the British Foreign Office's Information Research Department (IRD) to legitimize Allende's opponents55. The true motivation for the coup was ideological and economic: backed heavily by the CIA under the covert "Track II" and "Project FUBELT" operations, the Chilean right wing and the military sought to eradicate socialism, reverse nationalizations, and violently restructure the economy54. The CIA had previously attempted to trigger a coup in 1970 by orchestrating the kidnapping and subsequent murder of constitutionalist General René Schneider, proving the long-standing, predatory nature of the intervention54. Unlike Mali or Sudan, the replacement government envisioned in Chile was not a transition back to democracy, but a permanent, draconian military dictatorship54. The armed forces were unified through strict internal purges and the murder of constitutionalist officers54. While conservative civilian elements supported the coup to protect their economic interests57, violence did not decrease; it was systematized. The regime institutionalized state terror, resulting in the torture, execution, and forced disappearance of over 3,000 political opponents over 17 years54. Chile demonstrates how the language of the "lesser-evil"—averting a fictitious massacre—is routinely deployed to launder the illegitimacy of a highly violent, ideologically driven power grab.

Typology and Outcomes of Analyzed Coups

The following table synthesizes the operational variables that separate successful lesser-evil interventions from failed mutations, survivalist mutinies, and predatory pretexts:

Conclusion

The historical record demonstrates that breaking the legal chain of command is an inherently volatile, high-risk maneuver that rarely produces its intended humanitarian or stabilizing outcomes unless specific, rigorous preconditions are met. The exhaustive analysis of these diverse historical episodes reveals that a lesser-evil coup succeeds in preventing greater bloodshed only when it is structurally anchored to a mobilized civil society and committed to a rapid, transparent institutional restoration. In the most successful cases—such as Mali in 1991, the Philippines in 1986, Sudan in 1985, and Saudi Arabia in 1964—the military or elite conspirators did not act as an isolated, rogue vanguard seeking permanent hegemony. Instead, they acted as a blunt enforcement mechanism for a consensus that had already been reached by the broader public, civil society, or traditional legal structures (such as the Saudi Ulama or the Philippine Catholic Church). In Mali, Amadou Toumani Touré succeeded because his intervention was inherently self-limiting; he outsourced the political restructuring to the CTSP and honored the democratic transition28. When the military acts purely as a midwife for civilian consensus, the state survives the trauma of mutiny. Conversely, when the military breaks the chain of command in isolation, driven purely by the fear of systemic collapse or personal survival, the results are almost universally disastrous. In El Salvador, the reformist junior officers failed because they lacked hegemony over their own institution, allowing right-wing hardliners to co-opt the junta and accelerate the bloodshed against the civilian populace15. In ancient Rome and the Sui Dynasty, survivalist mutinies temporarily eliminated the immediate threat of a psychotic sovereign, but the absolute absence of a viable civilian replacement vision plunged the respective states into chronic instability, proving that removing a tyrant without a blueprint is tantamount to state suicide44. Ultimately, the lesser-evil coup is the ultimate paradox of statecraft. To save the state from a destructive sovereign, the military must violate its most sacred internal law and operational ethos. Yet, the only historically proven method to ensure this violation cures the disease rather than killing the patient is for the armed forces to relinquish the power they have just seized as rapidly as possible. When military plotters confuse their ability to depose a tyrant with the legitimacy to govern in his place—or when they invent a humanitarian crisis to justify a predatory power grab—the lesser evil invariably becomes indistinguishable from the greater one.

Works cited

1. (PDF) The Role of Seniority-Based Succession (Ekberiyet) in, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/405411840\_The\_Role\_of\_Seniority-Based\_Succession\_Ekberiyet\_in\_Increasing\_Women's\_Influence\_in\_The\_Ottoman\_Empire

2. The Role of Seniority-Based Succession (Ekberiyet) in Increasing, https://ejournal.puspitur.com/pijar/article/download/39/25

3. Kösem Sultan \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6sem\_Sultan

4. Mehmed IV/Ottoman Empire Thrived Under Sultan Mehmed IV, https://amazingbibletimeline.com/blog/mehmed-ivottoman-empire-thrived-sultan-mehmed-iv-revival-ottoman-power/

5. Review: The Drowning Guard by Linda Lafferty \- Melisende's Library, http://melisendeslibrary.blogspot.com/2020/04/review-drowning-guard-by-linda-lafferty.html

6. The Reign of Sultan Abdulaziz in the American Press \- DergiPark, https://dergipark.org.tr/tr/download/article-file/1810778

7. MURAD V- Sultan for 93 days in 1876 \- Mavi Boncuk, http://maviboncuk.blogspot.com/2004/06/murad-v-sultan-for-93-days-in-1876.html

8. Representations of the Ottoman Empire in the West: Abdülhamid II's, https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/15/6/724

9. Empayar ottoman kejatuhan pt 2 | PPTX \- Slideshare, https://www.slideshare.net/slideshow/empayar-ottoman-kejatuhan-pt-2-110054320/110054320

10. Saudi Arabia \- THE REIGNS OF SAUD AND FAISAL \- Country Studies, https://countrystudies.us/saudi-arabia/11.htm

11. Mohammed bin Salman and Religious Authority and Reform in, https://www.bakerinstitute.org/research/mbs-political-religious-authority-saudi-arabia

12. The Conflict Wings in the Saudi Political System \- Semantic Scholar, https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/7ad5/83f98f65c9b0c59176ee28ba51f66c8c33d7.pdf

13. 4 \- Saudi Arabia and the Politicization of Corporate Regulation in, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/crude-calculations/saudi-arabia-and-the-politicization-of-corporate-regulation-in-historical-perspective/B731614303BC5584F06571FBEB5E2067

14. A history of treason \- King Faisal bin Abdul Aziz bin Abdul Rahman, https://www.islamtimes.com/en/article/385050/a-history-of-treason-king-faisal-bin-abdul-aziz-rahman-al-saud

15. 1979 Salvadoran coup d'état \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1979\_Salvadoran\_coup\_d%27%C3%A9tat

16. El Salvador 1979 (Chapter 8\) \- Coups d'État in Cold War Latin, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/coups-detat-in-cold-war-latin-america-19641982/el-salvador-1979/236D51446A7A09FD6CEE88B86F78B3DC

17. EL SALVADOR: A Coup Against Chaos \- TIME, https://time.com/archive/6850744/el-salvador-a-coup-against-chaos/

18. EN EXCLUSIVA. Coronel Majano: «15 DE OCTUBRE DE 1979, https://www.elindependiente.sv/2024/10/16/en-exclusiva-coronel-majano-15-de-octubre-de-1979-vision-historica/

19. Revolutionary Government Junta of El Salvador \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary\_Government\_Junta\_of\_El\_Salvador

20. Annual Report 1979-1980 Chapter V El Salvador, https://cidh.oas.org/annualrep/79.80eng/chap.5c.htm

21. Majano, Adolfo Arnoldo (1938–) \- Encyclopedia.com, https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/encyclopedias-almanacs-transcripts-and-maps/majano-adolfo-arnoldo-1938

22. People Power Revolution \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People\_Power\_Revolution

23. EDSA PEOPLE POWER REVOLUTION \- Amnesty Philippines, https://www.amnesty.org.ph/2022/07/protestph-edsa-revolution/

24. Edsa '86: A military perspective | Inquirer News \- Philippines, https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/364951/edsa-86-a-military-perspective

25. God Save the Queen Plot \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God\_Save\_the\_Queen\_Plot

26. Transitional Military Council (1985) \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional\_Military\_Council\_(1985)

27. Sudanese Civil War Resumes | History | Research Starters \- EBSCO, https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/history/sudanese-civil-war-resumes

28. Mali's March Revolution (1991) | CNCR \- Nonviolent-conflict.org, https://www.nonviolent-conflict.org/malis-march-revolution-1991/

29. The Legacy of Military Governance in Mali, https://africacenter.org/spotlight/legacy-military-governance-mali/

30. Coup d'État de 1991 au Mali \- Wikipédia, https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup\_d%27%C3%89tat\_de\_1991\_au\_Mali

31. What Went Wrong in Mali? \- Global Policy Forum, https://archive.globalpolicy.org/pmscs/51897-what-went-wrong-in-mali.html

32. 20 June 1960 as part of Mali Federation, comprising of Senegal and, https://brill.com/display/book/edcoll/9789004502857/B9789004502857\_s045.pdf

33. Francophone Africa in Flux: Mali's Decade of Democracy, https://muse.jhu.edu/article/17143/summary

34. Malians defeat dictator, gain free election (March Revolution), 1991, https://nvdatabase.swarthmore.edu/content/malians-defeat-dictator-gain-free-election-march-revolution-1991

35. MALI: The Winds of Democracy \- TIME, https://time.com/archive/6717459/mali-the-winds-of-democracy/

36. 1991 Malian coup d'état \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1991\_Malian\_coup\_d%27%C3%A9tat

37. Enabling Environments for Civic Movements and the Dynamics of, https://www.refworld.org/reference/countryrep/freehou/2008/en/27771

38. 1992 Malian parliamentary election \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992\_Malian\_parliamentary\_election

39. Narratives of the Nation and Democracy in Mali, https://journals.openedition.org/etudesafricaines/1467?lang=en

40. Mali (02/05) \- State.gov, https://2009-2017.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/mali/47162.htm

41. Mali's Amadou Touré and the Conundrum of African Leadership, https://www.cfr.org/articles/malis-amadou-toure-and-conundrum-african-leadership

42. Suetonius • Life of Caligula, https://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Suetonius/12Caesars/Caligula\*.html

43. Caligula: A Biography of Rome's Most Notorious Ruler \- History Prime, https://www.historyprime.com/articles/ancient-rome/emperor-caligula-biography

44. Emperor Caligula \- Everything Everywhere, https://everything-everywhere.com/emperor-caligula/

45. Caligula \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula

46. Did anyone try and make Rome a Republic again? : r/AskHistorians, https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4mshi7/did\_anyone\_try\_and\_make\_rome\_a\_republic\_again/

47. Roman Emperor Caligula: Horse, Facts, Life And Scandals, https://www.historyextra.com/period/roman/caligula-facts-life-biography-horse-consul-incitatus-little-boots-how-die/

48. 40+ Facts About The Sui Dynasty（ 581-618 AD）, https://sonofchina.com/what-is-the-sui-dynasty-known-for/

49. (Victor Cunrui Xiong) Emperor Yang of The Sui Dynasty \- Scribd, https://www.scribd.com/document/464558784/Victor-Cunrui-Xiong-Emperor-Yang-of-the-Sui-Dynasty

50. Transition from Sui to Tang \- Military Wiki | Fandom, https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Transition\_from\_Sui\_to\_Tang

51. Ethnic Identity in Tang China 0812240529, 9780812240528, https://dokumen.pub/ethnic-identity-in-tang-china-0812240529-9780812240528.html

52. Emperor Yang of Sui \- Military Wiki | Fandom, https://military-history.fandom.com/wiki/Emperor\_Yang\_of\_Sui

53. Ep. 129 | The Incident at Xuanwu Gate \- The China History Podcast, https://teacup.media/chinahistorypodcastepisodes/ep-129-the-incident-at-xuanwu-gate

54. 1973 Chilean coup d'état | Salvador Allende, Augusto Pinochet, CIA, https://www.britannica.com/event/1973-Chilean-coup-d-etat

55. 1973 Chilean coup d'état \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973\_Chilean\_coup\_d%27%C3%A9tat

56. Augusto Pinochet \- Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Augusto\_Pinochet

57. The Coup in Chile | ReVista, https://revista.drclas.harvard.edu/the-coup-in-chile/

58. Britain's secret propaganda offensive in Chile (1960-1973), https://livrepository.liverpool.ac.uk/3138801/

59. Battling for Hearts and Minds: Memory Struggles in Pinochet's Chile, https://dokumen.pub/battling-for-hearts-and-minds-memory-struggles-in-pinochets-chile-19731988ltbrgt-9780822388548.html

60. Augusto Pinochet's Dictatorship (Chapter 4\) \- Hispanic Technocracy, https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/hispanic-technocracy/augusto-pinochets-dictatorship/B5271CD3CED0BAF39C75BFCCFA24E9CA

61. A half-century after Pinochet's coup, some Chileans remember the, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/a-half-century-after-pinochets-coup-some-chileans-remember-the-brutal-dictatorship-fondly

62. The Coup Against the Third World: Chile, 1973 | Tricontinental, https://thetricontinental.org/dossier-68-the-coup-against-the-third-world-chile-1973/