Literally every military coup in recent history had been said to be about “restoring democracy” and many of them were also proceeded by street protests. This is the narrative of every coup ever. It’s not an insightful take, it’s pro forma language and has been for over 70 years
It's a script:
1) contested legitimacy
2) "restoring democracy"
3) ignoring/downplaying US involvement (which very well may not be the case in Bolivia but clandestine action is secret by definition and historically little has been known in real time) truthdig.com/articles/your-…
1) contested legitimacy
2) "restoring democracy"
3) ignoring/downplaying US involvement (which very well may not be the case in Bolivia but clandestine action is secret by definition and historically little has been known in real time) truthdig.com/articles/your-…
NYT editorial on Chile coup 1973
1) contested legitimacy
2) "restoring democracy"
3) ignoring/downplaying US involvement
1) contested legitimacy
2) "restoring democracy"
3) ignoring/downplaying US involvement
one may truly believe this particular military coup was an accurate straw poll of the will of the people and not illegitimate but it's worth noting this is said about every coup in Latin America since the 1940s. In and of itself it's not a very meaningful statement.
the 1973 coup against Allende was also proceeded by widespread protests. Does this not make it a coup? I'm confused what is actually be argued here.
side note: the day after the coup Angela Davis more or less got that one right
