I guess I'll be pedantic for a moment. A coup, by definition, is a seizure of power from government. If they are not successful at seizing power, then it was not a coup.
thats not a coup, thats obstruction of procedure and didny have a snowballs chance in hell of succeeding. Calling it a coup is bad-faith interpretation of the event.
That's an interesting and reasonable perspective. If you stretch the definition of a coup to include totally incoherent, incompetent, ineffectual raging that could never actually achieve the outcome, it could qualify. But it still feels like a stretch to me based on what I know of coups (sadly some personal experience there).
I also think calling it a coup inflames tensions and risks credibility for no real benefit. A sober and precise description of events is damning enough.
My problem is with the description of that action as a "coup". I'm not defending those people. I'm not informed well enough to do that. But a coup? I don't think so.
Coups generally rely on military support, or some sort of established basis for taking and holding political power. This was not a coup. Or it was the shittest one ever.
reply