Suchergebnisse

Sam Ikoku, a Nigerian maverick, was one of President Shagari's advisers when suddenly the December 1983 coup landed him in Kirikiri prison. Here is his genial account (now banned) of that moment

The article is devoted to the history of the emergence and development of the political crisis of the Interregnum. The central question of the article is examination of the reason why Nikolai, having received news of the death of Alexander, decided to swear allegiance to Konstantin. An analysis of historiography demonstrates that the most diametrical interpretations of this event are presented in the literature: Nikolai acted under pressure from M. A. Miloradovich and/or Maria Fedorovna, together with the Governor-General and/or Empress Mother. An important aspect of the work is the study of the normative component of the problem of succession. It is shown that by November 1825 a contradictory situation had developed: by law the heir was Konstantin, by family agreement — Nikolai. The article justifiably proves that the Manifesto of Alexander I on the transfer of the throne of Nicholas was a model of separate family law and was never supposed to be published. On the basis of a wide range of sources, the article reconstructs the course of meetings on November 25, describes the features of taking the oath on November 27, and reveals the development of the dynastic crisis arising from them. It is demonstrated that Nicholas had a complex plan to seize power, which implied unification with representatives of the generals and the highest bureaucracy, an oath in favor of Konstantin in violation of the established tradition, pressure on his older brother and, ultimately, the proclamation of emperor. The article presents the question of rumors spread in St. Petersburg society related to the secession of Poland and the hypothetical murder of Constantine.

The term 'coup d'état', French for stroke of the state, brings to mind coups staged by power-hungry generals who overthrow the existing regime, not to democratize but to concentrate power in their own hands as dictators. We assume all coups look the same, smell the same, and present the same threats to democracy. It's a powerful, concise, and self-reinforcing idea. It's also wrong. 'The Democratic Coup d'État' advances a simple yet controversial argument: Sometimes a democracy is established through a military coup. The work covers events from the Athenian Navy's stance in 411 BC against a tyrannical home government to coups in the American colonies that ousted corrupt British governors and to twentieth-century coups that toppled dictators and established democracy in countries as diverse as Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, and Colombia.