Wednesday's attack on Congress was not an attempted coup in the pure political sense. The threat to democracy does not come from within the state. Instead, it comes from Donald Trump, his fanatic supporters and a Republican Party that is increasingly authoritarian. The question now is whether in the wake of the attack, Republicans will change their strategy, safeguard democracy and tell the truth.
On Jan. 6, Donald Trump stood in front of thousands of supporters; some of them dressed in militia attire, carrying guns, while a few were carrying actual pipe bombs. In an hour-long speech, Trump told his supporters that the election had been stolen from them and that it was their job to take back their country. Trump ended his speech by asking his supporters to head to Capitol Hill, the very symbol of American democracy.
This launched an attack on the Capitol, where the angry mob quickly overran police and found its way into the heart of Congress just minutes after members of Congress were evacuated. This is the initial culmination of an attempt by Trump and his Republican colleagues for years to undermine American democracy, and it raises this question: What is the state of American democracy?
My research focuses on dictatorships in countries like Cuba, Iran and North Korea, so it’s a bad sign when someone asks me to write about the United States. My immediate conclusion is, therefore, also clear: The events we saw on Jan. 6 undoubtedly constitute an attack on democracy. Trump supporters tried to interrupt the certification of the election results so that the loser of the presidential election could remain in office.
Was It a Coup?
On the other hand, it is not entirely clear whether or not this was a coup attempt in the political sense. Research is not clear on what constitutes a coup, and the onslaught on the Capitol has prompted heated debate over just this question. Most definitions, including the large data set of coups in history by Jonathan Powell and Clayton Thyne that is most frequently cited, list as a basic requirement that the military or other elite within the state participate in the attempted illegitimate overthrow.
Fortunately, this does not seem to be the case in the storming of the Capitol. Instead, police tried to stop the extremists from entering the building, and in doing so, one police officer was tragically killed. Subsequently, police also received reinforcement from other security forces.
While the way security forces responded deserves criticism, and an investigation should take place into whether their failure to respond was negligent or deliberately planned, it is clear that police did not actively participate in storming the Capitol. There is also nothing to indicate that the military will not support Biden as president. Consequently, no political scientist is likely to classify the Jan. 6 event as a coup.
Some might ask if it matters at all whether we call it a coup attempt or not. This is somewhat similar to asking whether a patient has the plague or cholera. From a general point of view, the person is seriously ill regardless. Nevertheless, the crucial point is that if we want to provide the proper treatment, it is important to make the right diagnosis.
If we define the attack on Congress as a coup attempt, we must focus on the state. However, what we saw unfold largely resembled a rebellion or insurrection. Trump did not have the control he would have needed over the security agencies. This seemed to hold true as former secretaries of defense cautioned Trump against using the military. In that way, Trump differs from his authoritarian colleagues such as Vladimir Putin, Alexander Lukashenko and Nicolas Maduro, who still can count on the support of the state during critical situations. Instead, in a desperate attempt to stay in power, Trump had to put his trust in what he hoped was the last weapon in his arsenal, namely his fanatic supporters.
The Big Lie
While it is easy to laugh at people wearing stupid costumes running around Congress taking selfies, it is important not to underestimate the threat this represented in this specific situation as well as in the long term. After the event, news surfaced that trained militia groups who had targeted politicians were among the so-called innocent extremists. Minor details such as whether the extremists turned in the right direction at the right place determined whether or not the situation would become a massacre.
In the long term, the United States will have to deal with the fact that a significant number of Americans abandoned reality and put their blind trust in Trump instead. Over the past four years, Trump has tried to establish an alternative reality in which he alone dictates the truth. He has constantly lied and called the mainstream media “fake news,” echoing what the Nazis called the “lying press,” which is enough to give you nightmares. Republican Party members and the right-wing media alike echo Trump's reality. Add to this the fact that research by Matthew Graham and Milan Svolik shows that a vast majority of Americans put party over democracy, including Republicans and Democrats. According to the political philosopher and thinker Hannah Arendt, this creates a breeding ground for totalitarianism.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e. the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e. the standards of thought) no longer exist,” Arendt wrote.
Trump capitalized on this distortion of reality and the extreme polarization that followed his election defeat. He promoted what Yale University historian Timothy Snyder calls the big lie, i.e., that Trump won the election but was cheated out of victory. Opinion polls show that a large majority of Republicans believes this to be true, and on Jan. 6, some of them took this as far as possible. Some lost their lives, and many more can look forward to long prison sentences.
The Republican Party and a New President
In light of what the big lie says, the extremists’ actions make good sense; after all, they were trying to save the United States by overthrowing the rigged system that robbed them of their victory. However, the United States and the Republicans in particular must now deal with this matter.
New research shows that the Republican Party has increasingly become an authoritarian party reminiscent of Hungary’s Fidesz party or the Turkish AKP. Its anti-democratic rhetoric demonstrates this, as does the fact that leading up to the election, the Republican Party tried to suppress the voting rights of certain citizens. This also became evident on Jan. 6 when a group of Republican lawmakers refused to recognize Biden's win based on unfounded claims of election fraud. In their eyes, it is only democracy if they win.
The question remains whether the Republicans want to change their strategy, safeguard democracy and tell the truth. Next, it is important that Americans punish Republicans if they fail to do so. It is difficult to predict whether it will come to that because it depends on many unknown factors. Will Trump be held accountable? Will Trump run in 2024? Who takes the baton after Trump? Will right-wing extremists carry out terrorist acts? Will the Republicans abandon the belief that extremism is a viable way to win elections? Will it be possible to corrupt institutions? At this point, we can only speculate.
The riots are disturbing and they will go down in history as a disgrace. However, it is worth remembering that despite this step backward, the health of American democracy has recently improved a bit. The latest example of this is the Senate runoff election in Georgia, a traditionally Republican stronghold. Two Democratic candidates defeated their Republican opponents, both Trump loyalists. The victories handed the Democratic Party control of both houses of Congress and the ability to pass democratic reforms.
At the same time, the Georgia Senate elections show that Republicans are weak when they believe too strongly in Trump's agenda. Add to this the actual presidential election Trump lost, which occurred despite the fact that the electoral system gives Republicans an advantage over Democrats, and history shows that sitting presidents usually win a second term. One must also factor in the fact that both before and after the election, Trump and his cronies tried to exert enormous pressure on the electoral system in many ways: declaring election fraud, trying to disqualify voters, suing states in court and pressuring officials to overturn election results. Indeed, Trump convinced some voters he won the election, but he was unable to get American institutions to succumb to his will.
The United States still has free elections where people can choose their leader and that is precisely why it appears that Joe Biden will become the next American president.* Biden’s election was certified by Congress hours after the storming of the Capitol. Toward the evening, police managed to secure the building so that both houses could certify that voters had elected Biden as their next president. Democracy still seems to exist in the United States.
*Editor’s note: Joe Biden was sworn into office as the 46th president of the United States on Jan. 20.
Demokratiforsker Jacob Nyrup: Stormløbet mod Kongressen var et angreb på demokratiet – men det var ikke et statskup
12.01.2021
Onsdagens angreb på Kongressen var ikke et forsøg på statskup i politologisk forstand. Truslen mod demokratiet kommer nemlig ikke fra statsapparatet selv. I stedet kommer den fra Trump, hans fanatiske tilhængere og et Republikansk Parti, der i stigende grad er autoritært. Spørgsmålet er nu, om Republikanerne i kølvandet på angrebet vil ændre strategi, stå vagt om demokratiet og fortælle sandheden.
Kommentar af Jacob Nyrup
Den 6. januar 2021 stillede Donald J. Trump sig op foran tusindvis af tilhængere, nogle af dem klædt i militstøj og bærende slagvåben, mens enkelte medbragte deciderede bomber. I en timelang tale fortalte han sine tilhængere, at valget var blevet stjålet fra dem og at det var deres job at tage deres land tilbage. Trump afsluttede sin tale med at bede sine tilhængere om at marchere til Kongressens bygning, selve symbolet på amerikansk demokrati.
Dette startede et stormløb på Kongressen, hvor den vrede pøbel hurtigt overrumplede politiet og fandt vej helt ind til Kongressens hjerte – blot få minutter efter politikerne var blevet evakueret. Dette er den foreløbige kulmination på Trump – og hans Republikanske kollegaers – årelange forsøg på at underminere det amerikanske demokrati, og det rejser spørgsmålet; hvordan står det til med det amerikanske demokrati?
Jeg forsker til daglig i diktaturer og fokuserer på lande som Cuba, Iran og Nordkorea, så når jeg bliver bedt om at skrive om USA, er det et skidt tegn. Den umiddelbare konklusion er derfor også klar: Begivenhederne vi så den 6. januar udgør uden tvivl et angreb på demokratiet. Trumps tilhængere forsøgte at afbryde godkendelsen af valget for at få taberen af præsidentvalget til at forblive præsident.
Var det et statskup?
Det står til gengæld ikke helt klart, hvorvidt der i rent politologisk forstand var tale om et kupforsøg. Det er ikke entydigt i forskningen, hvad der udgør et kup, og stormløbet på Kongressen har foranlediget en heftig debat om netop dette. Men som en grundantagelse kræver de fleste definitioner, herunder den hyppigst brugte fra Powell og Thyne’s store datasæt over kup i historien, at militæret eller andre eliter i statsapparatet deltager i forsøget på ulovlig magtovertagelse.
Dette ser heldigvis ikke ud til at være tilfældet i stormløbet mod Kongressen. I stedet forsøgte politiet at stoppe ekstremisterne fra at trænge ind i bygningen, og en enkelt politimand blev i den forbindelse også på tragisk vis dræbt. Politiet fik derudover – noget forsinket – opbakning fra andre sikkerhedsstyrker.
Mens sikkerhedsstyrkernes indsats rettelig skal kritiseres og det bør undersøges, hvorvidt deres manglende respons skyldes ansvarsforsømmelse eller bevidst underminering af indsatsen, så står det klart, at sikkerhedsstyrkerne ikke deltog aktivt i stormen på Kongressen. Der er heller intet, der tyder på, at militæret ikke vil støtte op om Biden som præsident. Derfor vil den 6. januar næppe blive klassificeret som et statskup blandt politologer.
Nogle vil måske spørge, om det overhovedet betyder noget, hvorvidt vi kalder det et kupforsøg eller ej. Dette svarer jo et eller andet sted til at spørge, om patienten har pest eller kolera. Ud fra en almen betragtning er vedkommende jo alvorligt syg lige meget hvad. Men det springende punkt er selvfølgelig, at hvis vi ønsker at give den korrekte behandling, er det vigtigt at stille den rette diagnose.
Hvis vi kalder angrebet på Kongressen et kupforsøg, så skal vi i det lys fokusere på statsapparatet. Men det vi så udspille sig vil imidlertid nærmere blive betragtet som et oprør eller en opstand. Trump havde ikke den fornødne kontrol over sikkerhedsapparatet. Dette viste sig blandt andet ved, at tidligere forsvarsministre advarede Trump mod at bruge militæret. Hermed adskiller Trump sig fra autoritære åndsfæller så som Vladimir Putin, Alexander Lukashenko og Nicolas Maduro, der alle – indtil videre – kan regne med at have statsapparatet i ryggen i tilspidsede situationer. I stedet måtte Trump sætte sin lid til det (forhåbentligt) sidste våben i hans arsenal, hans fanatiske tilhængere, i et desperat forsøg på at blive ved magten.
Den store løgn
Selvom det er let at trække på smilebåndet overfor personerne, der iført fjollede kostumer løb rundt i Kongressen og tog selfies, er det vigtigt ikke at undervurdere truslen, både i den konkrete situation og på længere sigt. Det har efterfølgende vist sig, at der blandt de mere ”uskyldige” ekstremister var trænede militsgrupper, der gik målrettet efter politikere. Små ting, som hvorvidt ekstremisterne drejede til højre det rigtige sted, afgjorde hvorvidt det udviklede sig til en massakre.
På den længere bane bliver USA nødt til at forholde sig til, at der er en stor del af amerikanerne, som har forladt virkeligheden og i stedet stoler blindt på Trump. Trump har gennem de sidste fire år forsøgt at etablere en alternativ virkelighed, hvor han alene dikterer sandheden. Dette har han gjort ved konstant at lyve og kalde de etablerede medier for ”fake news” – et skræmmende ekko fra nazisternes begreb ’Lügenpresse’. Trumps virkelighed bliver gentaget af både partifæller og højreorienterede medier, og forskning fra blandt andet Graham og Svolik viser, at en stor andel af amerikanerne, såvel Republikanere som Demokrater, sætter partiet over demokratiet. Dette skaber ifølge den politiske filosof og tænker Hannah Arendt grobunden for totalitarisme:
“Det ideelle individ for totalitær kontrol er ikke den overbevist nazist eller den overbevist kommunist, men mennesker for hvem forskellen mellem fakta og fiktion (dvs. virkeligheden af ens egne oplevelser) og sondringen mellem sandt og falsk (dvs. kriterier for ens tænkning) ikke længere eksisterer”
Trump kapitaliserede på denne opløsning af en objektiv virkelighed og den ekstreme polarisering efter sit valgnederlag. Han promoverede, hvad Timothy Snyder, en historiker ved Yale University, kalder den store løgn: nemlig at Trump havde vundet valget, men var blevet snydt for sejren. Meningsmålinger viser, at et stort flertal af Republikanerne tror på dette og en del af disse tog dette til den yderste konsekvens den 6. januar. Enkelte mistede livet, og mange flere kan se frem til store fængselsstraffe.
Det Republikanske Parti og en ny præsident
I lyset af løgnen giver ekstremisternes handlinger god mening; de forsøgte jo at redde USA ved at afsætte det korrupte system, som fratog dem deres sejr. Men det er nu op til USA og i særdeleshed Republikanerne at forholde sig til dette.
Ny forskning viser, at det Republikanske parti i stigende grad er blevet et autoritært parti, der minder om det ungarske Fidesz eller det tyrkiske AKP. Dette ses blandt andet ved, at de op til valget forsøgte at fjerne stemmeretten for bestemte grupper af vælgere samt ved deres antidemokratiske retorik. Vi så det også den 6. januar, da en gruppe af Republikanske lovgivere nægtede at anerkende Bidens sejr på grund af ubegrundede anklager om valgsvindel. I deres øjne er det kun demokrati, hvis de selv vinder.
Spørgsmålet er nu, om Republikanerne vil ændre strategi, stå vagt om demokratiet og fortælle sandheden. Dernæst er det vigtigt, at de amerikanske vælgere straffer dem, hvis de ikke gør det. Hvorvidt dette bliver tilfældet, er svært at svare på, fordi det afhænger af en række faktorer med mange ubekendte. Bliver Trump holdt til ansvar? Stiller Trump op i 2024? Hvem tager stafetten efter Trump? Vil højreekstremister gennemføre terrorhandlinger? Vurderer Republikanerne at ekstremisme ikke er en farbar vej til at vinde valg? Vil det lykkedes at korrumpere selve institutionerne? Vi kan kun gisne om disse ting.
Selvom optøjerne er foruroligende og vil stå som en skamplet i historiebøgerne, er det værd at huske på, at det amerikanske demokrati på trods af dette tilbagefald for nyligt har vist svage sundhedstegn. Dette så vi senest ved senatsvalgene i Georgia, en traditionel Republikansk højborg. Her vandt to Demokratiske kandidater over deres Republikanske modstandere, der begge er Trump-loyalister. Sejrene giver Demokraterne flertal i begge kamre og dermed mulighed for at gennemføre demokratiske reformer.
Samtidig viser senatsvalgene, at Republikanerne står svagt, når de lægger sig for tæt op ad Trumps agenda. Tilmed er der selve præsidentvalget, hvor Trump tabte. Dette på trods af, at valgsystemet favoriserer Republikanerne og at det historisk set er meget usædvanligt, at en siddende præsident taber. Nederlaget skal derudover ses i lyset af, at Trump og hans kumpaner både før og efter valget forsøgte at lægge et enormt pres på valgsystemet ved blandt andet at erklære snyd, forsøge at få vælgere diskvalificeret, gennemføre søgsmål og ved decideret at prøve at presse embedsmænd til at omstøde valget. Trump fik rigtignok nogle vælgere til at tro på, at han havde vundet valget, men han var ude af stand til at få institutionerne til at bukke under for hans vilje.
USA har derfor stadigvæk frie valg, hvor befolkningen kan vælge deres leder, og netop derfor ser Joe Biden ud til at blive USA’s næste præsident. Dette blev også bekræftet efter stormen på Kongressen. Hen ad aftenen lykkedes det sikkerhedsstyrkerne at sikre bygningen, så begge kamre kunne bekræfte, at vælgerne har valgt Biden som den næste præsident. USA’s demokrati lever lidt endnu.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.