The use of armed force by one state against another to promote regime change has long been part of the foreign policy toolkit. Advocates argue that it is a cheap and efficient way to achieve political goals – such as supplanting illiberal regimes, promoting human rights, or advancing economic interests. But recent scholarly research demonstrates that foreign regime-change missions rarely succeed as envisioned and frequently produce deleterious side effects.
A regime-change strategy often fails because the initial overthrow of a government is only a fraction of what is needed to bring about a sustainable democratic transformation. To break the logjam of inertia and skepticism that typically prevents democratization, regimes must be able to convince citizens that they are genuinely interested in addressing their problems – a task that is much harder than it sounds.
As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt observe, “The bedrock assumption that a democracy is an institution designed to serve its citizens’ interest requires that rivals be treated as legitimate contenders for power.” Those competing for power must also be given some leeway in the way they exercise their authority once they gain it. This principle, known as institutional forbearance, is a key component of democracy and it is now at risk.
The United States must abandon its belief that regime-change policies are a useful tool of foreign policy and refrain from sponsoring foreign coups. Instead, it should focus on using tools like accepting more asylum seekers, supporting civil society groups without covert aid, and focusing on strengthening its allies through cooperation. Otherwise, spiraling regime-change attempts will encourage countries like China to view U.S. foreign policy as a threat that they must defend against at all costs.