Has a coup d'état ever left a constitution untouched?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Psinter
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the historical instances of coup d'état and whether any have occurred without resulting in changes to a country's constitution. Participants explore the implications of coups on constitutional frameworks and citizens' rights, focusing on historical examples and theoretical considerations.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes the difficulty in finding examples of coups that left constitutions untouched, suggesting that most coups lead to the voiding of existing constitutions and the imposition of new ones.
  • Another participant argues that if a coup is seen as necessary, it implies that the existing constitution was failing to protect citizens' rights, making it unlikely that the old constitution would be reinstated post-coup.
  • Discussion includes the example of the Nazis, who did not formally abolish the Weimar Constitution but instead overrode it through emergency legislation, leading to arbitrary rule and the suspension of rights.
  • Further elaboration on the Nazi rise to power indicates that their actions were not a traditional coup but rather a manipulation of existing constitutional provisions to establish a dictatorship.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on whether any coups have left constitutions untouched, with no consensus reached on specific historical examples. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of coups on constitutional integrity and citizens' rights.

Contextual Notes

Participants acknowledge the complexity of constitutional applications in various historical contexts, including the lack of guarantees for personal rights in some written constitutions. The discussion highlights the chaotic nature of governance during coups and the role of existing legal frameworks in facilitating or obstructing changes in power.

Psinter
Messages
278
Reaction score
785
I've been reading about different coup d'état across history, but haven't been able to find one in which a country's constitution is left untouched. Most of them automatically void constitutions and implant new ones after finishing. Leaving citizens with barely any rights during it.

Has there ever been one in which a country's constitution was left untouched [STRIKE]and citizens could still claim their rights during it[/STRIKE] after the events? All I find is constitutions responding to the new government regime and not the citizens.

edit: I actually mean after. Its obvious that during you cannot claim any rights since those who are supposed to defend your rights are fighting.
 
Last edited:
Science news on Phys.org
Psinter said:
I've been reading about different coup d'état across history, but haven't been able to find one in which a country's constitution is left untouched. Most of them automatically void constitutions and implant new ones after finishing. Leaving citizens with barely any rights during it.

Has there ever been one in which a country's constitution was left untouched [STRIKE]and citizens could still claim their rights during it[/STRIKE] after the events? All I find is constitutions responding to the new government regime and not the citizens.

edit: I actually mean after. Its obvious that during you cannot claim any rights since those who are supposed to defend your rights are fighting.

Most countries don't have or didn't have constitutions in the modern sense, and written ones are a relatively recent innovation. In a lot of countries with a written constitution, there is no guarantee that the document can be used to assert or protect personal rights against the state. After all, the Soviet Union had three different written constitutions over 75 years, for what little good they did for the average Soviet citizen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Soviet_Union

Still, if the political situation in a country with a constitution got so bad that a coup became a viable alternative to changing the political situation, it would make little sense to continue using the old constitution after the coup. Obviously, a significant portion of the population involved in fomenting the coup felt their interests were not being served or protected by the status quo ante, so why go back and continue using the old constitution?
 
SteamKing said:
Still, if the political situation in a country with a constitution got so bad that a coup became a viable alternative to changing the political situation, it would make little sense to continue using the old constitution after the coup. Obviously, a significant portion of the population involved in fomenting the coup felt their interests were not being served or protected by the status quo ante, so why go back and continue using the old constitution?
Sorry for late reply. It wasn't until your explanation but it makes sense now.
 
The Nazis had little interest in such things as Constitutions and never abolished the Weimar Constitution, they merely
overrode or ignored it. Key provisions were a sort of emergency legislation called the Reichstag Fire Decree and a the Enabling Act which allowed essentially arbitrary rule, suspension of all rights e.g. press, labor unions, arbitrary arrest and authorised rule without the Reichstag, whose non-Nazi members were arrested or fled. Likewise existing institutions like German law and administration were used here or ignored and bypassed there, arbitrariness was the name of the game, the 'system' was quite chaotic. For instance no law or official decree set up the concentration camps, they just somehow happened. The "will of the Fuehrer" was of course absolute, but as he was usually too lazy and disorganised to express one it was often in practice the will of anyone who could plausibly make it believed that he was expressing it. This characteristic and paucity of paper traces made it possible afterwards for apologists to try and absolve him from grave responsibility for the holocaust.
 
epenguin said:
The Nazis had little interest in such things as Constitutions and never abolished the Weimar Constitution, they merely
overrode or ignored it. Key provisions were a sort of emergency legislation called the Reichstag Fire Decree and a the Enabling Act which allowed essentially arbitrary rule, suspension of all rights e.g. press, labor unions, arbitrary arrest and authorised rule without the Reichstag, whose non-Nazi members were arrested or fled. Likewise existing institutions like German law and administration were used here or ignored and bypassed there, arbitrariness was the name of the game, the 'system' was quite chaotic. For instance no law or official decree set up the concentration camps, they just somehow happened. The "will of the Fuehrer" was of course absolute, but as he was usually too lazy and disorganised to express one it was often in practice the will of anyone who could plausibly make it believed that he was expressing it. This characteristic and paucity of paper traces made it possible afterwards for apologists to try and absolve him from grave responsibility for the holocaust.

Technically, the Nazis never staged a coup to obtain power: German Pres. Paul v. Hindenburg appointed Hitler chancellor and asked him to form a government under his (Hindenburg's) power as specified in the Weimar constitution, which government was sworn in Jan. 30, 1933. For a few weeks after his appointment as chancellor, Hitler served as the head of a coalition between the NSDAP and Hindenburg's German National People's Party (DNVP). Hitler then urged Hindenburg to dissolve the Reichstag and set new parliamentary elections for March 1933.

In the meantime, the Reichstag burned on Feb. 27, 1933, and Hitler used the pretext of this fire to pursuade Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree the next day. This decree suspended basic rights and allowed detention without trial. Armed with this decree, the Nazis began rounding up their political opponents wholesale. As Minister for the Interior of Prussia in Hitler's government, Hermann Goering had already started to replace key police officials in the intelligence and political departments with Nazi party members, and, separating these departments from the rest of the police organization, Goering created the basic functions of the Gestapo.

Because the Reichstag Fire Decree led to the detention of so many, special camps, concentration camps, were set up. The first one, at Dachau, was personally ordered set up by Heinrich Himmler in March 1933.

The new parliamentary elections were held March 6, and the Nazis won less than 44% of the vote, still not enough to form a majority government. Again, the Nazis formed a coalition government with the DNVP, and Hitler introduced the infamous Enabling Act in the new Reichstag soon after it was seated on March 21. A vote was scheduled for March 23 which required a two-thirds majority for passage. Hitler cut a deal with the head of the Center Party to vote for the act, and used the powers of the Reichstag Fire Decree to exclude or ban outright members of the Reichstag opposed to the Nazis. The Enabling Act passed handily, and the Nazis were firmly set in power in Germany, although they had never won a majority of seats in previous elections. A de facto dictatorship had been established by skillful use of existing constitutional provisions, without the need for a coup d'etat.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 142 ·
5
Replies
142
Views
12K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
9
Views
2K