As the crisis in Venezuela deepens, many are raising the specter of regime change. This policy involves covert or overt efforts to supplant a nation’s leadership with one that is more amenable to the foreign power’s political, security and economic objectives. Often the goal is to spread democracy and advance commercial interests.
But the history of regime-change missions suggests that a more likely outcome is civil war, mass killings and lengthy nation-building projects. In fact, the record is so poor that there is a growing scholarly consensus that these missions rarely succeed as intended.
There are some exceptions. For example, South Africa’s white minority government was forced to step down by a combination of international pressure and domestic unrest that created the conditions for a successful democratic transition with Nelson Mandela as president. But even in this case, it’s important to remember that a successful democratic transition depends on a country’s level of development and the ability of the military to stay out of politics.
Furthermore, regime-change advocates often mislead Americans about the costs and consequences of this policy. The libertarian think tank Cato Institute hosted a panel discussion in February that highlighted the research showing that the cost of promoting regime change significantly exceeds any benefits. And the longer-term effects of regime-change policy make it far harder to advance American goals abroad, including limiting future proliferation and defending our borders from terrorists. For these reasons, the Trump administration should shift away from pursuing regime-change strategies and toward building up the capacity of local governments to resist external interference.