Draft:Revolutions in autocracies after military defeats

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


Regime change in autocracies following military defeat refers to cases in which authoritarian governments collapse or undergo transitions after losing wars.

According to political scientists Hein Goemans (2000) and Sarah Croco and Jessica Weeks (2016), military defeat can significantly undermine regime stability by weakening elite cohesion, eroding the ruler's legitimacy, and reducing the willingness of the armed forces to defend the incumbent regime.[1][2]

Comparative research has shown that while democratic leaders tend to be removed through electoral mechanisms after failures in the battle field , authoritarian leaders often face more abrupt or violent exits, such as coups, forced resignations, or revolutions (Goemans, 2000; Chiozza & Goemans, 2004; Debs & Goemans, 2010).[1][3][4]

The relationship between war outcomes and leadership survival has therefore become a central topic in the study of authoritarian politics and regime transitions.

Several studies have found that the interval between military defeat and regime change varies widely, depending on domestic political structures and international conditions (Croco & Weeks, 2016; Geddes, Wright & Frantz, 2014).[2][5]

In some cases, such as the German Empire in 1918 or Greece in 1974, defeat was immediately followed by regime collapse, while in others, such as the Soviet Union after the Afghan War, political change occurred only after a prolonged period of postwar crisis.

War outcomes and the fate of leaders

[edit]

Goemans (2000) conducted one of the first systematic analyses linking war outcomes to leader survival. His findings suggest that leaders who preside over military defeat face an elevated risk of removal from office, and that the consequences vary by regime type.[1]

Chiozza and Goemans (2004) further examined whether war is "ex post inefficient" by analyzing how international conflict outcomes affect political tenure. Their results indicate that autocratic leaders are especially vulnerable to loss of office following military defeat, and that the costs of failure are often existential rather than reputational.[3]

Building on these insights, Debs and Goemans (2010) introduced a model linking regime type, war outcomes, and leader fate. They found that in non-democratic regimes, defeat sharply increases the likelihood of removal, and that such removals frequently occur through coups or mass uprisings rather than peaceful transitions.[4]

Croco and Weeks (2016) synthesized this research, showing that military defeat destabilizes ruling coalitions and weakens the military's commitment to the incumbent, thereby heightening the probability of coups or revolutions.[2]

Coups, militaries, and endgame interventions

[edit]

Military institutions often play a decisive role in determining whether authoritarian regimes survive defeat or collapse during crises. According to Koehler and Albrecht (2021), militaries may engage in what they term "endgame coups" - interventions that occur at the terminal stage of mass uprisings.[6] Rather than acting pre-emptively to defend embattled regimes, armed forces in such situations reposition themselves to preserve their own institutional or corporate interests.[6] Koehler and Albrecht argue that these coups tend to emerge not at the onset of a crisis but during its culmination, as the military seeks to manage the transition between a weakening regime and mobilized opposition forces.[6]

Croissant and Kuehn (2024) analyze similar dynamics in post cold war contexts and find that military defeat can serve as a catalyst for institutional realignment within the armed forces.[7] Their study identifies a pattern in which military organizations reassess loyalty to incumbent rulers following loss in war, especially when the defeat exposes internal divisions or external vulnerabilities.[7] In some cases, these realignments lead to defections from the ruling elite, while in others they culminate in direct military intervention or seizure of power.[7] Croissant and Kuehn conclude that defeat often alters the balance of incentives faced by officers, encouraging them to prioritize corporate survival over regime preservation.[7]

Mass uprisings and revolutionary dynamics

[edit]

Scholars have observed that military defeat can weaken the coercive capacity of authoritarian states and contribute to the onset of popular uprisings.

Albrecht and Koehler (2020) argue that revolutionary movements in authoritarian regimes frequently emerge after the erosion of state coercive power, which may occur following external defeat or internal crisis. Their comparative analysis of mass uprisings shows that when a regime's security apparatus becomes fragmented or demoralized, the likelihood of large-scale mobilization against it increases significantly.[8]

Goldstone, Grinin, and Korotayev (2022) also identify military defeat as a recurrent trigger of revolutionary waves across different historical periods. In their overview of revolutions from the early modern era to the 21st century, they note that wartime losses can delegitimize ruling elites, create economic and logistical dislocation, and shift the strategic calculus of opposition movements.[9]

However, scholars emphasize that the precise mechanisms linking defeat to revolution vary across cases, depending on regime type, institutional structure, and the cohesion of coercive forces (Albrecht & Koehler, 2020; Goldstone et al., 2022).[8][9]

Regime breakdown and transition pathways

[edit]

Research on authoritarian politics has identified a consistent association between external shocks, such as wars, and the breakdown of autocratic regimes.

Geddes, Wright, and Frantz (2014) developed a comprehensive dataset on regime transitions that documents how various forms of external pressure, including military defeat, can precipitate elite fragmentation and political collapse. Their findings indicate that personalist and military regimes are especially vulnerable to breakdown following external crises, as their survival depends heavily on elite cohesion and control over coercive institutions.[5] When defeat exposes divisions within the ruling coalition or erodes confidence in the leadership, these regimes are more likely to experience coups, forced resignations, or revolutionary transitions.[5]

Kendall-Taylor and Frantz (2014) similarly emphasize that autocratic regimes often fall when internal vulnerabilities intersect with external crises.[10] Drawing on cross-national data, they argue that military failure can act as a critical juncture, accelerating pre-existing tendencies toward regime disintegration.[10] In their analysis, war defeat weakens the perceived legitimacy of rulers, heightens elite competition, and undermines the ability of the state to repress dissent.[10] These dynamics, according to the authors, explain why certain authoritarian systems collapse rapidly after defeat, while others experience gradual transitions or negotiated exits.[10]

Where autocratic leaders rely on narrow personal or military networks, defeat is more likely to provoke rapid breakdown, and where ruling institutions are broader and more institutionalized, transition may proceed through managed reform or elite negotiation (Geddes et al., 2014; Kendall-Taylor & Frantz, 2014).[5][10]

Historical Examples

[edit]

Russian Empire (1905)

[edit]

Military defeat: Russo-Japanese War (February 1904 – September 1905).

Revolution: Russian Revolution of 1905, beginning January 1905.

Time gap: Overlapping.

According to Steinberg (2017), Russia's defeat in the Russo-Japanese War undermined the authority of Tsar Nicholas II and sparked widespread protests and strikes. Steinberg points that although the revolution began before the formal end of the war, major military defeats like the fall of Port Arthur and the Battle of Mukden heightened popular discontent. As Steinberg notes, the revolution did not end in regime over through but rather resulted in limited reforms, including the establishment of the Duma.[11]

Russia (1917)

[edit]

Military defeat: Series of defeats during World War I, especially 1916–1917.

Revolution: February Revolution, 1917.

Time gap: Within months.

According to Steinberg (2017), wartime hardships, military failures, and logistical breakdowns led to massive protests and mutinies in early 1917.[11] Steinberg (2017) notes that the February Revolution forced Tsar Nicholas II to stepdown, ending centuries of Romanov rule and initiating a provisional government.[11]

Austria-Hungary (1918)

[edit]

Defeat: October - November 1918 (Collapse in WWI).

Revolution: November 1918 - Disintegration of Empire.

Time Gap: Immediate.

Mason (1997) and Roháč (2008) assert that the Austro-Hungarian empire broke apart rapidly as military defeat coincided with nationalist uprisings and political collapse.[12][13]

German Empire (1918)

[edit]

Military defeat: Armistice of 11 November 1918.

Revolution: German Revolution of 1918–1919.

Time gap: Immediate (within days).

Days before the German surrender was signed in a railroad car, in the Compiègne Forest near the town of Compiègne, or as it known by the name the Armistice of 11 November 1918, the German Revolution of 1918–1919 outbroke.

Frie (2022) claims that Germany's defeat in World War I led directly to the collapse of the German Empire. Days before the armistice was signed, mutinies by sailors in Kiel triggered nationwide unrest. The abdication of Kaiser Wilhelm II on 9 November 1918 and the proclamation of the Weimar Republic marked a swift transition from monarchy to republic.[14]

Ottoman Empire (1918–1923)

[edit]

Military defeat: Armistice of Mudros, 30 October 1918.

Revolution: Turkish War of Independence, beginning 19 May 1919.

Time gap: ~7 months.

According to Palmer (2011), following its defeat in World War I by the allied forces, the Ottoman Empire experienced growing nationalist resistance. Led by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, the Turkish nationalist movement rejected the Treaty of Sèvres and waged a successful revolution, resulting in the abolition of the Sultanate in 1922 and the establishment of the Republic of Turkey in 1923.[15]

Hungary (1919)

[edit]

Defeat: November 1918 - Austro-Hungarian collapse.

Revolution: March 1919 - Hungarian Soviet Republic.

Time gap: ~4 months.

According to Deak (1968), in postwar chaos, communists seized power briefly in response to territorial losses and foreign intervention.[16]

Imperial Japan (1945)

[edit]

Military defeat: Surrender of Japan, 15 August 1945.

Revolution/Transition: U.S.-led democratization, 1945–1947.

Time gap: Immediate.

According to Dower (2000), Japan underwent a profound regime transformation after its surrender in World War II, though not a popular revolution. Under U.S. occupation, the 1947 constitution abolished the divine status of the emperor and established a parliamentary democracy.[17]

Greece (1974)

[edit]

Defeat: July 1974 - Turkish invasion of Cyprus.

Revolution: July 1974 - Collapse of junta.

Time gap: Immediate (within days).

According to Clogg (2021), the military failure in Cyprus prompted the fall of the Greek dictatorship and a swift return to civilian rule.[18]

Argentina (1982–1983)

[edit]

Military defeat: Falklands War, ending 14 June 1982.

Revolution/Transition: Democratic elections, 30 October 1983.

Time gap: ~16 months.

According to Lewis (2002), Argentina's defeat by the United Kingdom in the Falklands War discredited the ruling military junta, which had governed since 1976. The loss, combined with economic instability and widespread human rights abuses, led to public outcry and a transition to democratic rule. Civilian president Raúl Alfonsín was elected in 1983.[19]

Iraq (1991)

[edit]

Military defeat: Gulf War, ending 28 February 1991.

Revolutionary attempt: 1991 Iraqi uprisings (March–April 1991).

Time gap: ~1 week.

According to The human rights watch (1992) and Tripp (2002), following Iraq's defeat by U.S.-led coalition forces in the Gulf War, mass uprisings erupted in the Shi'a south and Kurdish north. Starting in early March 1991, just days after the ceasefire, millions of Iraqis took to the streets in rebellion against the Ba'athist regime led by Saddam Hussein. Despite initial rebel successes and desertions from the military, the regime violently suppressed the uprisings within weeks, using tanks, helicopter gunships, and mass executions. U.S. forces did not intervene, allowing Saddam to retain power.[20][21]

Serbia (2000)

[edit]

Military defeat: Kosovo war (ended in 11 June 1999) after the bombing campaign on Serbia (24 March 1999 - 10 June 1999).[22]

Regime change: Bulldozer Revolution that was followed by Democratic election. The collapse of Milošević's rule took place on 5 Oct 2000.[23]

Time gap: The time gap from the military defeat, marked by the Kumanovo agreement (signed 9 Jun 1999)[24], to the collapse of Milošević's rule on 5 Oct 2000 was 484–483 days (≈15.9 months). He formally conceded on 6 Oct 2000, which is 485–484 days after the defeat.

According to Khodunov (2022) the defeat in the Kosovo war was the main catalyst to the demise of Milošević's rule.[25]

Soviet Union (1991)

[edit]

Military defeat: Soviet-Afghan war. The war ended on 15 February 1989 with an Afghan victory.[26]

Regime change: The Soviet Union seized to exist on 26 December 1991.[27]

Time gap: 2 years, 10 months, 11 days (i.e., 1,044 days).

According to Maley (2021)The war is considered to be one of the reason for the dissolution of the Soviet Union.[28]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ a b c Goemans, H. E. (2000-10-01). "Fighting for Survival: The Fate of Leaders and the Duration of War". Journal of Conflict Resolution. 44 (5): 555–579. doi:10.1177/0022002700044005001. ISSN 0022-0027.
  2. ^ a b c Croco, Sarah E.; Weeks, Jessica L. P. (2016). "War Outcomes and Leader Tenure". World Politics. 68 (4): 577–607. doi:10.1017/S0043887116000071. ISSN 0043-8871. JSTOR 26347363.
  3. ^ a b Chiozza, Giacomo; Goemans, H. E. (2004). "International Conflict and the Tenure of Leaders: Is War Still Ex Post Inefficient?". American Journal of Political Science. 48 (3): 604–619. doi:10.1111/j.0092-5853.2004.00090.x. ISSN 1540-5907.
  4. ^ a b Debs, Alexandre; Goemans, H.E. (August 2010). "Regime Type, the Fate of Leaders, and War". American Political Science Review. 104 (3): 430–445. doi:10.1017/S0003055410000195. ISSN 0003-0554.
  5. ^ a b c d Geddes, Barbara; Wright, Joseph; Frantz, Erica (June 2014). "Autocratic Breakdown and Regime Transitions: A New Data Set". Perspectives on Politics. 12 (2): 313–331. doi:10.1017/S1537592714000851. ISSN 1537-5927.
  6. ^ a b c Koehler, Kevin; Albrecht, Holger (2021-01-01). "Revolutions and the Military: Endgame Coups, Instability, and Prospects for Democracy". Armed Forces & Society. 47 (1): 148–176. doi:10.1177/0095327X19881747. hdl:1887/138866. ISSN 0095-327X.
  7. ^ a b c d Croissant, Aurel; Kuehn, David (2024-12-01). "Soldiers and Autocratization. Varieties of Military Roles in Post-Cold War Asia". Journal of Global Security Studies. 9 (4): ogae046. doi:10.1093/jogss/ogae046. ISSN 2057-3170.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)
  8. ^ a b Albrecht, Holger; Koehler, Kevin (2020-06-01). "Revolutionary mass uprisings in authoritarian regimes". International Area Studies Review. 23 (2): 135–159. doi:10.1177/2233865920909611. ISSN 2233-8659.
  9. ^ a b Goldstone, Jack A.; Grinin, Leonid; Korotayev, Andrey (2022), Goldstone, Jack A.; Grinin, Leonid; Korotayev, Andrey (eds.), "The Phenomenon and Theories of Revolutions", Handbook of Revolutions in the 21st Century: The New Waves of Revolutions, and the Causes and Effects of Disruptive Political Change, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 37–68, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-86468-2_2, ISBN 978-3-030-86468-2, retrieved 2025-06-20
  10. ^ a b c d e Kendall--Taylor, Andrea; and Frantz, Erica (2014-01-02). "How Autocracies Fall". The Washington Quarterly. 37 (1): 35–47. doi:10.1080/0163660X.2014.893172. ISSN 0163-660X.
  11. ^ a b c Steinberg, Mark D. (2017). The Russian Revolution, 1905-1921. Oxford University Press. ISBN 978-0-19-922762-4.
  12. ^ Mason, John W. (2014-06-06). The Dissolution of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, 1867-1918 (0 ed.). Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315841571. ISBN 978-1-317-88628-0.
  13. ^ Roháč, Dalibor (2009-06-01). "Why did the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapse? A public choice perspective". Constitutional Political Economy. 20 (2): 160–176. doi:10.1007/s10602-008-9058-0. ISSN 1572-9966.
  14. ^ Frie, Ewald (2022), Gehler, Michael; Rollinger, Robert; Strobl, Philipp (eds.), "The End of the German Empire", The End of Empires, Universal- und kulturhistorische Studien. Studies in Universal and Cultural History, Wiesbaden: Springer Fachmedien, pp. 529–539, doi:10.1007/978-3-658-36876-0_26, ISBN 978-3-658-36876-0, retrieved 2025-06-21
  15. ^ Palmer, Alan (2011-05-19). The Decline and Fall of the Ottoman Empire. Faber & Faber. ISBN 978-0-571-27908-1.
  16. ^ Deak, Istvan (1968). "Budapest and the Hungarian Revolutions of 1918-1919". The Slavonic and East European Review. 46 (106): 129–140. ISSN 0037-6795. JSTOR 4205930.
  17. ^ Dower, John W. (2000-06-17). Embracing Defeat: Japan in the Wake of World War II. W. W. Norton & Company. ISBN 978-0-393-34524-7.
  18. ^ Clogg, Richard (2021). A Concise History of Greece. Cambridge Concise Histories (4 ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/9781108953924. ISBN 978-1-108-84489-5.
  19. ^ Lewis, Paul H. (2002). Guerrillas and Generals: The Dirty War in Argentina. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 978-0-275-97359-9.
  20. ^ www.hrw.org https://www.hrw.org/reports/1992/Iraq926.htm. Retrieved 2025-06-20. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
  21. ^ Tripp, Charles (2002-05-27). A History of Iraq. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-0-521-52900-6.
  22. ^ "NATO & Kosovo: Index Page". www.nato.int. Retrieved 2025-10-03.
  23. ^ "Milosevic Concedes Defeat; Yugoslavs Celebrate New Era (Published 2000)". 2000-10-06. Archived from the original on 2023-01-20. Retrieved 2025-10-03.
  24. ^ "NATO & Kosovo: Military Technical Agreement - 9 June 1999". www.nato.int. Retrieved 2025-10-03.
  25. ^ Khodunov, Alexander (2022), Goldstone, Jack A.; Grinin, Leonid; Korotayev, Andrey (eds.), "The Bulldozer Revolution in Serbia", Handbook of Revolutions in the 21st Century: The New Waves of Revolutions, and the Causes and Effects of Disruptive Political Change, Societies and Political Orders in Transition, Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 447–463, doi:10.1007/978-3-030-86468-2_16, ISBN 978-3-030-86468-2, retrieved 2025-10-04
  26. ^ "The Soviet War in Afghanistan: History and Harbinger of Future War?". ciaotest.cc.columbia.edu. Retrieved 2025-10-03.
  27. ^ "Dissolution of the USSR | History of Western Civilization II". courses.lumenlearning.com. Retrieved 2025-10-03.
  28. ^ Maley, William (2021). The Afghanistan wars (Third ed.). London: Macmillan International, Higher Education. ISBN 978-1-352-01102-9.
This page will be placed in the following categories if it is moved to the article namespace.
Categories: