In the chaotic years that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, the newly created Russian state was consumed by political turmoil. The culmination of this period was the 1993 Russian constitutional crisis. It was a showdown that claimed the lives of 147 people and was eventually brought to an end with military force. The confrontation showed how fragile Russia’s new democracy had become and set the course for the trajectory of the country over the next decade.

Historical Context: The Collapse of the Soviet Union

Many historians believe that the constitutional crisis of 1993, particularly its violent nature, was predicted by the August coup in 1991. The coup exposed the serious flaws in Soviet leadership, which Yeltsin used to gain support among the Russian people and portrayed himself as a hero of the Independence movement. Yeltsin’s famous speech outside the Russian Parliament Building in defiance of the hard-line communist coup made him a hero in the eyes of many people. After the coup failed, Yeltsin acted quickly as prime minister of Russia to dissolve the Communist Party and officially begin the process of dissolving the Soviet Union itself.

The euphoria of Russian independence soon was replaced by chaos and uncertainty as the leaders of Russia were now faced with filling a power vacuum that had been left by 70 years of autocratic and centralized government. A political conflict was almost inevitable because of the improvised and contradictory nature of the political institutions that were set up in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet Union. One of the key sources of conflict was the Soviet Constitution of 1978, which was adopted by Russia but unfit to govern a nation in the post-Soviet world. The constitution caused a number of disputes over the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government, which set the stage for the constitutional crisis of 1993.

A Nation on the Brink

During the early 1990s, Russia was constantly on the verge of political and economic collapse as it attempted to navigate the hardships left in the wake of the Soviet Union. The nation’s political structure, still stuck in the Soviet past, was pulled from either side by the two forces of the executive and legislative branches of government. Each branch claimed they had the constitutional power to set the country’s agenda, and the stage was set for a showdown.

Boris Yeltsin was a passionate supporter of swift modernization and rapid change, which he saw as the only way to help Russia emerge from the post-Soviet period. However, his aggressive economic measures, which were characterized by his policy of “shock therapy,” brought about quick but painful changes in the market, which triggered runaway inflation that made the lives of everyday Russians miserable. In opposition to Yeltsin’s reformist approach was the Russian Parliament, which was dominated by officials from the Soviet era. These old Soviets grew wary of Yeltsin and began to demand that the executive powers of the presidency be checked by the Russian Constitution.

The Road to Crisis: Causes and Build-up

One of the key motivations behind the 1993 constitutional crisis was a fundamental disagreement between parliament and representatives over the direction, nature, and pace at which Yeltsin pursued constitutional reform to achieve his aims. Yeltsin argued that the newly independent Russian nation required a strong leader to navigate the challenging tides of transition; therefore, he advocated that the president be given more power to impose swift and decisive reforms. In contrast, the Russian parliament, which was made up mostly of conservative and nationalist officials, aimed to hold on to a significant amount of legislation or authority in order to check the growing power of the president.

Between 1992 and 1993, the relationship between parliament and the presidency became increasingly hostile. A legislative impasse resulted in parliament preventing Yeltsin from carrying out several of his most important decrees. Russian Vice President Alexander Rutskoy became a key figure in support of parliament and became the de facto leader of the opposition against Yeltsin.

The Constitution Controversy: Power Struggles

To settle the dispute between parliament and the presidency, Yeltsin sought to dismiss the 1978 Soviet-era constitution in favor of a new document that would create a presidential republic. This new constitution would give the president broad executive authority, allowing Yeltsin to carry out his reform program without the permission of parliament.

However, the Russian Parliament fiercely opposed Yeltin’s planned constitution as they believed such a document would give the executive overwhelming power to overrule the democratic checks and balances that the 1978 Soviet-era constitution had created. They saw Yeltsin’s proposal as a prelude to an authoritarian government that would stifle Russian democracy before it had a chance to flourish.

In response to Yeltsin’s proposal, the Russian Parliament refused to pass any of the president’s proposed laws and reforms. To circumvent this, Yeltsin used a number of presidential decrees to get his laws passed. In retaliation, the Russian Parliament attempted to limit Yeltsin’s authority by passing laws that restricted his reforms and even approved the budget without his approval. As more members of the Russian parliament opposed Yeltsin’s orders, a string of legal and political disputes ensued, leaving the government in disarray and the country in chaos.

The Confrontation: Decrees and Counter-Decrees

The Constitutional Crisis effectively began on September 21, 1993, when Yeltsin issued a presidential decree that dissolved parliament and triggered an election. This sparked the beginning of an open confrontation between the Russian president and the Russian Parliament. To justify his decree, Yeltsin claimed that the legislative branch was blocking important reforms that went against the best interests of the country. His actions were framed as a necessary step to prevent a national emergency and bring back order. However, there was widespread opposition to Yeltsin’s move, and many accused him of behaving unconstitutionally.

In response to his decree, the parliament began the process of impeaching Yeltsin and declared his declaration invalid and unconstitutional. The crisis reached a dangerous stage when parliament declared Vice President Alexander Rutskoy the acting president of Russia. The leaders of the legislative group, Rutskoy and Chairman Ruslan Khasbulatov, further inflamed the conflict by calling on the military to back them in their opposition to Yeltsin.

Constitutional instability deepened over the next few days as both sides issued a series of decrees and counter-decrees. The support of senior military officers, regional governors, the United States, and other Western countries emboldened President Yeltsin, and no compromise was made. As the situation worsened, the Russian Parliament Building, known as the White House, was turned into the center of resistance against Yeltsin, and the Russian Parliament sealed itself within the building in preparation for a siege.

The Siege of the White House

The Constitutional Crisis reached a violent peak on October 3 when pro-parliament demonstrators arrived in Moscow, blockaded streets, and attempted to take control of the Ostankino television center. Yeltsin was forced to declare a state of emergency to regain control over the capital and demonstrate his authority. During the storming of the Ostankino TV tower, Russian military forces defended the building from huge crowds of protesters with deadly force. In total, 46 people were killed during violent clashes at the TV station.

One day later, Yeltsin ordered the Russian armed forces to invade the Russian Parliament building and bring the crisis to an end. The White House was surrounded by tanks, and the parliament was attacked by heavy artillery. The resulting resistance within the building was quickly put to an end as the White House was consumed by flames.

The leaders of the parliamentary faction, notably Rutskoy and Khasbulatov, quickly surrendered themselves to the military and were later taken into custody. The use of force to end the standoff highlighted how serious the constitutional crisis was and how far Yeltsin was prepared to go in order to maintain control. More than a hundred people died during the siege, which was one of the bloodiest days in post-Soviet Russian history and represented the ruthless end to parliamentary resistance to executive power.

Aftermath: Victory and Fallout

After the Russian Constitutional crisis came to an end, the political and social culture of the nation experienced a profound change. Yeltsin quickly began consolidating his power and acted quickly to bring into force a new constitution that would give him broad authority. This new constitution dramatically changed how the Russian Federation was governed, giving the executive considerably more power than was even possible under the Soviet Union.

The new constitution was given public legitimacy in a national referendum in December 1993. While the new constitution aimed to improve the stability of the government and free the executive branch from the obstructions of the legislature when implementing essential reforms, it also created a precedent for future executive overreach that would have serious consequences.

The 1993 Russian Constitutional Crisis and how it was resolved had a significant impact on the trajectory of Russian democracy. Yeltsin’s strategy of dealing with the crisis by using violence and force set a precedent that would characterize the later years of his presidency and that of his successor Vladimir Putin. Moreover, the crisis contributed to a disillusionment with democracy and the peaceful political process.

Legacy: Reflections on the Crisis

The political future of Russia was permanently changed by the Constitutional Crisis of 1993. Although Yeltsin’s victory brought short-term stability to the country, it also weakened legislative oversight and greatly increased presidential authority, planting the seeds for a slide toward autocracy and the end of democracy itself.

The long-term effects are seen in the ongoing consolidation of power by the executive. The new constitution was used by Vladimir Putin to further solidify his hold on power, frequently at the expense of democratic institutions and civil rights. What happened in 1993 showed that parliamentary opposition could be overcome by strong executive action, which helped to foster a political climate in which stability and power were frequently valued above democratic procedures.

Following the collapse of the autocratic regime of Tsar Nicholas II, a provisional government filled the political vacuum in Russia. The alleged aims of the new government under Prince Lvov and Alexander Kerensky were to establish liberal democracy, provide civil liberties, and continue Russia’s involvement in World War I. However, civil unrest continued throughout the country, and the Bolsheviks, led by Vladimir Lenin, violently took the opportunity to seize power.

Collapse of Tsar Nicholas II’s Monarchy

By early 1917, Russia was on the verge of collapse. An unsuccessful revolt and a disastrous war with Japan in 1905 had already weakened the monarchy. Participation in World War I accelerated the decline.

There was a steady German advance into Russian territory in the first years of the war. In 1915, against the advice of his political aides, Tsar Nicholas II took direct control over the Russian military. However, militarily humiliating retreats continued, and casualties mounted. As a result, morale among soldiers sank.

Meanwhile, on the home front, there was an economic recession, high inflation, food and fuel shortages, transportation disruptions, and ongoing strikes by workers. Poverty was widespread, both in the countryside and the cities. The population’s anger against the tsar grew.

Grigori Rasputin, an unpopular monk, had become a favorite and an influential political adviser to Nicholas II and Tsarina Alexandra. Both the aristocracy and the peasants believed the royal couple were under Rasputin’s control and despised his influence.

Revolutionary movements within Russia continued to advocate for open revolt. The Imperial parliamentary, Duma, created in 1905, remained politically weak and ineffective.

The 1905 revolt brought few changes to Russia. Poverty, hunger, and inflation continued. Revolutionary ideas and parties grew and radicalized. The devastating loss in the Russo-Japanese War of 1905 previewed Russia’s military debacle in World War I.

With the tsar away at the front to command the failing war effort and the economic situation deteriorating further, demonstrations and then riots broke out in the capital, Petrograd (present-day St. Petersburg), in March 1917. The imperial authority dissolved, as Russian soldiers refused to put down the new rebellion, known as the February Revolution. Whereas protesters in 1905 appealed to their tsar for economic relief, in 1917, they openly called for his downfall. The Duma, now supported by the army, demanded that Nicholas II abdicate.

On March 15, Nicholas II stepped down, giving royal authority to his brother Michael, who decided to turn down the offer. Into the political vacuum arose an interim provisional government.

Provisional Government Under Prince Georgy Lvov

The Provisional Government inherited a Russian Empire that was weak, poor, and deeply divided. The role of the new government was to stabilize the country and prepare for elections for a new government. At first, there was joy and hope for a political body that would give stability and prosperity to the people.

Looking to stabilize the chaotic situation, the Provisional Government sought a leader who could bring the divided country together. Many politicians saw Prince Georgy Lvov as a moderate political figure. As he was not a member of the Duma at the time, Russians hoped he could rise above the political factions and successfully lead the nation. He took on the role of prime minister of the Provisional Government.

Most political observers viewed Lvov as a prudent politician. He was from the nobility, but he was not connected to the royal Romanov family. However, many critics also considered him a weak leader.

Additionally, the royalist factions believed Lvov to be a traitor to Tsar Nicholas for taking on the new role. Meanwhile, the workers’ factions representing the soviets (workers’ councils) did not trust him as a nobleman either. Thus, Lvov found himself isolated politically.

However, Lvov did manage to initiate important reforms for Russia. His government recognized trade unions and eight-hour work shifts for industrial workers. He abolished the tsar’s secret police. The release of political prisoners commenced. The Provisional Government also passed laws for universal suffrage, as well as freedom of speech, assembly, and a free press.

But one key decision continued to haunt Lvov and the Provisional Government: the plan to continue the unpopular war with Germany. In June 1917, a new Russian military offensive was launched. After initial successes, the Germans counterattacked, causing large casualties and further loss of Russian territory. Following widespread unrest, Georgy Lvov resigned as prime minister.

The Petrograd Soviet

One of the biggest challenges to the Provisional Government was the Petrograd Soviet. Soviets were working-class socialist councils of workers, soldiers, and sailors. These political organizations formed throughout Russia after 1905. The Petrograd Soviet was the most influential of them, first opposing the tsar and then interfering in the new republic.

From the start, the Petrograd Soviet undermined the Provisional Government. In March 1917, the group issued “Order Number One,” advising all workers to refrain from following the direction of the Provisional Government, unless approved by the Petrograd Soviet first.

Essentially, the Petrograd Soviet set up an alternative form of government to the acting Provisional Government. There were now dual opposing forces governing Russia.

However, the Petrograd Soviet, though not a recognized legal entity, wielded more effective political power and control over institutions by running a tight organization with popular support. Lawyer and revolutionary Alexander Kerensky summed up the dilemma, saying the Petrograd Soviet possessed “power without authority” while the Provisional Government had “authority without power.”

Among the past leaders of the Petrograd Soviet was the Bolshevik Leon Trotsky. Trotsky and the radical Bolsheviks fought for control of the Soviet with their main rivals, the more moderate socialist Mensheviks. While the Mensheviks dominated the Petrograd Soviet at the start of the Revolution, the better-organized Bolsheviks gained influence throughout 1917.

Perhaps the biggest division between the two institutions was about the war. Soldiers and sailors made up a significant section of the Petrograd Soviet, and they opposed continuing the fight. The Mensheviks’ tepid support of the war effort dissolved their influence in favor of Vladimir Lenin’s Bolsheviks, who wanted to remove Russia from the conflict and promote a socialist revolution.

Provisional Government Under Alexander Kerensky

Alexander Kerensky replaced Prince Georgy Lvov as prime minister of the fledgling Provisional Government in July 1917. Curiously, Kerensky and Lenin had close connections. They grew up in the same town east of Moscow. They both trained as lawyers. They were each political socialists.

However, whereas Lenin embraced radical Marxism, Kerensky adopted the more moderate Menshevik style liberal ideology. For a brief period, Kerensky was even a vice-chairman of the Petrograd Soviet, while also working in the Provisional Government as the only socialist in the cabinet.

As war minister, Kerensky led the disastrous offensive of June 1917 that resulted in 400,000 Russian casualties. As prime minister, Kerensky continued to support the failing war effort.

Upon becoming leader, Kerensky’s first task was to quell Bolshevik-led unrest against the government. In response, Kerensky ordered Bolshevik leaders arrested. Lenin fled the country. Although the threat from the left temporarily eased, a new threat to the government came from the right.

In August, Kerensky’s newly appointed army commander-in-chief, General Lavr Kornilov, allegedly threatened to stage a military coup. Kornilov claimed he just wanted to bring law and order to Petrograd. Virtually defenseless, Kerensky desperately asked the Petrograd Soviet for armed support. In return, the Soviet demanded the release of Bolshevik prisoners arrested by the government, which they did.

These incidents further exposed the Provisional Government’s weaknesses. Kerensky attempted further reforms and added more socialist ministers to his cabinet to gain popularity. However, he continued the unpopular war effort despite growing opposition.

Towards the fall of 1917, the Bolsheviks dominated the Petrograd Soviet. To prevent their growing influence, Kerensky once again ordered raids on Bolshevik leaders and institutions. However, lacking effective military support meant government orders were mostly ineffective.

Fall of the Provisional Government

By November 1917, the Provisional Government had lost any lasting influence over Russia. Attempts at reforms had mostly failed, and the government stubbornly continued to support the war.

Meanwhile, backing for the Bolsheviks multiplied. Controlling the Petrograd Soviet, they once again elected Trotsky to lead the governing body. One of his first acts was to organize a military revolutionary committee to prepare for armed conflict. At the same time, Kerensky attempted to rally forces to support the government.

On November 7 (October 25 in the Julian calendar) came the final confrontation between the Petrograd Soviet and the Provisional Government known as the October Revolution. Following Kerensky’s unsuccessful crackdown, troops loyal to the Bolsheviks and the Soviet advanced on Petrograd to seize important installations, including government buildings, armories, bridges, and communication centers. The Bolsheviks, led by Lenin and Trotsky, had the support of city workers as they called for “peace, land, and bread.”

Later that day, Bolshevik forces surrounded the Winter Palace, the seat of the Provisional Government. Heavily outnumbered, defenders of the government waited for the attack. A signal for the assault on the palace came that evening. Almost immediately, the defenders fled in panic or joined the assault. Armed militias pillaged the Winter Palace and arrested government ministers hiding inside.

Kerensky fled Petrograd and eventually left Russia to settle in France. The Provisional Government had fallen with little bloodshed or resistance. At the same time, the Congress of Soviets was meeting. The day after the fall of Kerensky’s government, Lenin addressed the Congress. He claimed victory for the working masses, promised to immediately end Russia’s involvement in World War I, and to promote international revolution.

The Russian Provisional Government appeared doomed from the start. The government never won the hearts and minds of the people. Legislation for liberties such as freedom of speech and assembly came after the tsar’s abdication, but this freedom resulted in increasing agitation against the new government.

The economy continued to stagnate during 1917, causing further anger. The question remains what might have happened had the Provisional Government taken Russia out of the war. Perhaps they could have stayed in power long enough to form a stable government after a general election. Or that may not have made any difference against the Bolsheviks.

World War II left the European continent in ruins; it caused destruction, mass displacement, and economic hardships. The threat of the Soviet Union’s expansion, coupled with the harsh socio-economic conditions, paved the way to the “irreconcilable antagonism” of the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. The US-initiated Truman Doctrine aimed to contain the spread of communism through military and political support to the vulnerable European states, while the Marshall Plan provided financial assistance to the war-torn European states to reconstruct and rebuild. While these foreign policy initiatives played a significant role in the economic revival of the European continent, they also solidified the ideological division between East and West.

The Long Telegram

On February 22, 1946, George Kennan, an American Foreign Service officer and Chargé d’Affaires in Moscow, sent an 8,000-word telegram to the American State Department. The telegram, also widely referred to as “The Long Telegram,” became the base of American foreign policy during the Cold War. Through Kennan’s socio-cultural and historical analyses of the motives that shaped the Soviet Union’s foreign policy, the Long Telegram provided recommendations for Harry Truman’s administration.

According to Kennan, the Soviet Union would move forward on the whole European continent through geopolitical and ideological advances if the United States did not change its isolationist policies. Kennan concluded that “the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.”

One year after the submission of the Long Telegram, on February 21, 1947, Great Britain notified the United States about the withdrawal of its military and financial aid from Greece and Turkey. This move made strategically placed European states vulnerable to communist takeover. Both Greece and Turkey were in deteriorating economic and political situations stemming from World War II. Greece was also in the flames of the Civil War, torn between the Greek monarchy and communist guerillas, and in a severe economic crisis.

In a broader context of the Soviet Union’s efforts to expand its dominance in the European region, Turkey’s government was dealing with Soviet forces stationed near the Turkish border, while Soviet leader Joseph Stalin demanded control over the Dardanelles Straits.

Britain considered Greece and Turkey under its sphere of influence due to their strategic location.

Aiming to secure control over the key maritime routes (the Dardanelles Strait and the Bosporus Strait in Turkey, as well as the Aegean Sea between Greece and Turkey) during the early 20th century, these countries had acquired strategic geopolitical importance for Britain. World War II, however, had drained British resources, and with the United States entering the international arena from its isolationist stance, Great Britain sought to pass the responsibility to America.

The Truman Doctrine

To address the challenge, on March 12, 1947, American President Harry Truman delivered a speech at a joint session of Congress. Truman asked Congress to provide financial and military aid to Greece against the Greek Communist Party and to Turkey. The Truman Administration requested $400,000,000 worth of aid (~$5.6 billion in 2025) for both states. The initiative became known as the Truman Doctrine.

By this time, the United States had already experienced significant failures in its foreign policy regarding the USSR during and immediately following World War II, which made it more difficult to pursue a reconciliation strategy with the Soviet Union. The following setbacks served as the impetus for the establishment of the Truman Doctrine:

1. The Soviet Union failed to adhere to the principles of the Tehran Declaration of 1943, where Stalin pledged to withdraw from northern Iran by 1946.
2. The Soviet Union rejected the Baruch Plan. The plan, which the United States government presented to the United Nations Atomic Energy Commission on June 14, 1946, aimed to establish international control over the use of nuclear energy and weapons.

In his speech, President Truman stressed the crucial importance of preventing the communist takeover of Greece and Turkey because doing so would change the security situation in the strategically significant Middle East.

This assertion was mostly predicated on the “Domino effect” theory put forth by Undersecretary of State Dean Acheson. According to the hypothesis, if one country fell to communism, it would facilitate and even cause the takeover of the neighboring countries, much like a line of dominoes would fall if the first one collapses. In this sense, Turkey and other nations would succumb to communism if Greece fell to the Greek Communist Party.

Besides security considerations, Truman presented the American state as a guarantor of stability and peace of “free people” against the “totalitarian regimes,” declaring that its spread would “undermine the foundations of international peace and hence the security of the United States.”

Even though President Truman’s approval rating was only 35%, the largely Republican Congress nevertheless approved the request to deter the spread of communism in Europe. The decision was motivated by strategic calculations and a broader consensus on the importance of deterring the expansion of the Soviet Union in strategically important Europe.

Thus, Europe became the front line of the emerging Cold War rivalry.

The Marshall Plan

Secretary of State George C. Marshall saw the need for American economic assistance to Europe for its stability during his visit at the Moscow Foreign Ministers Conference in March and April 1947. During this event, the secretary of state once again became aware of the Soviet Union’s expansionist aspirations in Europe.

George C. Marshall believed that socio-economically weak European states were more vulnerable to communism. Indeed, following the end of World War II, European countries were on the brink of famine; cities were in ruins, infrastructure was destroyed, and the import of goods was disturbed. Marshall declared that “the patient is sinking while the doctors deliberate.”

Marshall assigned two weeks to American experts of different specialties to draft a strategy for the reconstruction and recovery of Europe. Subsequently, on June 5, 1947, Secretary of State George C. Marshall delivered a pivotal speech at Harvard University, outlining a comprehensive plan for European recovery.

The Economic Cooperation Act, passed by Congress in March 1948, provided approximately $12 billion ($171 billion in 2025) for the reconstruction of Western Europe in response to the rapidly declining European economies and growing communist influence on the continent.

American President Harry S. Truman signed the European Recovery Program on April 3, 1948.

Initially, the Marshall Plan offered financial aid to almost all European countries, including the Soviet Union. The Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, however, refused and forced its satellite countries, particularly Czechoslovakia and Poland, to deny participation in the program.

The Marshall Plan included the following European countries: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and western Germany.

The European Recovery Program established two implementing organizations, one representing the United States and another representing Europe. These organizations were assigned the role of facilitating dialogue between the two parties, coordinating and allocating funds, and negotiating the process of adoption of the policy reforms of the European states.

On the American side, the Economic Cooperation Administration (ECA), headed by Paul G. Hoffman, was established. Its main task was to distribute American aid to different European states for four years. The aid was designed to restore and enhance agricultural and industrial production, introduce a free market economy, support trade, and establish financial stability. The financial assistance of the Marshall Plan would be in the form of direct aid and loans.

On the European continent, headed by France and Great Britain, the Committee of European Economic Cooperation was established to coordinate the Marshall Plan locally. Following the completion of the Marshall Plan, the organization was replaced by the Organization for European Economic Co-operation (OEEC).

The Marshall Plan proved successful. During this period, Western European countries saw a rise in their gross national products of 15 to 25 percent. The plan revived European chemical, engineering, and steel industries. In return, the Marshall Plan provided new markets for American goods and facilitated international trade.

The Differences Between the Truman Doctrine & Marshall Plan

The emerging Cold War environment was complex, multifaceted, and had different dimensions of conflicting interests. The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan can be regarded as dual strategies of containment and reconstruction. While they both were born in the face of emerging Cold War rivalry and intended to deter the spread of communism, they differed in the essence of assistance, target areas, and implementation mechanisms.

Context

The Truman Doctrine was a response to the changing post-World War II geopolitical environment in which the Soviet Union was actively extending its influence to Eastern European states. Communist insurgencies and political instability threatened the new world order. Thus, the Truman Doctrine was an immediate response to the crisis by providing military and political assistance to bolster American-friendly governments against communist movements. It can be viewed as more reactionary in nature compared to the Marshall Plan.

The Marshall Plan emerged in the context of a post-World War II European population struggling socio-economically, which made them more vulnerable to Soviet influence. The Marshall Plan aimed for long-term recovery and stability in Europe.

Target area

The Marshall Plan was specifically targeted on the European continent, while the Truman Doctrine was not constrained regionally and applied to any country facing the threat of communist takeover or establishment of the sphere of Soviet influence.

Implementation mechanism

The Truman Doctrine’s key focus was military aid for countries vulnerable to Soviet invasions, such as Greece and Turkey. The doctrine later became a leading strategy of the American foreign policy of the Cold War, signaling the end of its isolationism. The Truman Doctrine provided a specific amount of aid for immediate actions directly to the governments of the particular country.

The Marshall Plan, however, provided purely economic and financial assistance through grants and loans. The recovery was implemented through a structured bilateral framework between the parties: the Economic Cooperation Administration in the United States and the Committee of European Economic Cooperation in Europe.

The Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan played crucial roles in defining the structure of the emerging Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union. They both became cornerstones of American foreign policy, resulting from the threat of Soviet expansion in Europe.

After World War I and the collapse of the Tsarist Russian Empire, the Bolsheviks conducted a massive campaign of terror during the Russian Civil War (1917-1922). They used the Cheka, the first Soviet secret police organization, to seek out political opponents, peasants, landowners, and anybody who stood in their way. The Red Terror lasted from August 1918 to February 1922. It should not be confused with the Red Scare or the Red Purge. The Soviet’s methods of political repression and expulsion included the infamous Gulag system of forced labor and relocation camps.

The Russian Revolutions of 1917

In the 1910s, Russians suffered many economic hardships, and they mourned the civilian losses from World War I. Additionally, tsar Nicholas II’s rule was dissatisfactory and the government corruption contributed to the poor state of affairs. As a result, political factions rose up against their government.

There were two revolutions in Russia in 1917. The first uprising gained popularity in February and forced Tsar Nicholas II to abdicate. The revolutionaries sent him and his family into exile and would later kill them all on July 17, 1918.

Then in October and November 1917, the Bolshevik political party staged a coup d’etat and overthrew the provisional government led by the Socialist Revolutionary Party. The Bolsheviks, alternatively known as the Reds, were a far-left offshoot of the Mensheviks, and both were factions of the Marxist party called the Russian Socialist Democratic Labor Party.

The Bolsheviks seized power in the October Revolution of 1917. Soon after, the Russian Civil War began. The Bolsheviks renamed their party a few times before settling on the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU). From 1922 to 1991, the Soviet Union operated as a one-party communist system.

The Soviet Union was not just Russia, it was the federal union of 15 republics. The USSR would then occupy nine more countries to create satellite states that they controlled.

Vladimir Lenin, the revolutionary leader and founder of the Soviet Union, quickly rose to power. There were a few assassination attempts on Lenin’s life, and the Soviets believed that he was always in danger. They began the Red Terror campaign to protect Lenin and other high-ranking Bolsheviks.

The Red Terror Begins

Not only were the Bolsheviks afraid for their leaders, they were motivated to initiate the Red Terror for several more reasons: the massacres of communist prisoners during the October Revolution of 1917, the killings of Russians by the Finnish “Whites” (anti-communists) during the Finnish Civil War, and the international intervention from allied forces during the ensuing Russian Civil War.

The campaign was not just to purge the enemies within the government who might harm Lenin or other communists; they targeted a wide range of people.

Indeed, the Soviets purged supporters of the former tsarist government, liberals, conservatives, and anybody who did not fully adhere to the Bolsheviks’ agenda, such as the Mensheviks, the political group from which they originated.

As the communists were anti-religion, they also targeted the Russian Orthodox Church and other religious minorities.

During the Red Terror, the Soviets also persecuted foreigners and anybody who traveled to a Western nation and came back, believing they could be spies.

They arrested civilians who sold their own goods and wares because they were against capitalism.

Peasants, especially those who refused to hand over their land, food, or businesses to the new government, were fined and arrested. Sometimes, they were deported or killed on sight.

The Reds even arrested industrial employees, who were the backbone of the communist system, if they did not meet quotas or went on strike for better working conditions.

“Enemies of the state” became a broad term; nobody was safe from being potentially targeted.

Dictatorship of the Proletariat

During the period of transition from capitalism to communism, the Soviet Union became a dictatorship of the proletariat. Bolsheviks suppressed any opposition or resistance to the planned transitional phase that came from the upper class, the bourgeoisie. To create a classless society, they eliminated or exiled the wealthy. They arrested and deported landlords, capitalists, kulaks, and sometimes attacked people for no reason but claimed it was because they were part of the bourgeoisie.

Kulaks were “wealthy” peasants who owned at least three hectares (eight acres) of land. They acquired the land or became credit lenders. During the Stolypin reform (1906-1914), the kulaks were pushed to become conservative and driven for profit. During the Red Terror, the term kulak was used to refer to peasants who owned property and hesitated to hand over their land, food, or animals, or actually did withhold their property from the Soviets. The term was vaguely derogatory and used to incorrectly identify peasants who withheld grain when the Bolsheviks demanded it.

Vladimir Lenin believed in a revolution against the kulaks, and he promoted the idea that kulaks were the enemies, depicting them as “bloodsuckers, vampires, plunderers of the people and profiteers” (Rubinstein, 2001).

The propaganda fueled hatred and division, causing civilian militias to attack those they believed were kulaks.

The Cheka

During the Red Terror, hundreds of thousands of people were interrogated by the secret police, the Cheka, because they were deemed enemies of the state. The Cheka was established as a political police organization in December 1917 with the first director, Felix Dzerzhinksy. He was in charge of sniffing out all “counterrevolutionaries” and “class enemies” who might threaten the new Soviet dictatorship.

The death penalty was reestablished in February 1918 to facilitate the elimination of the so-called enemies. In June, the Cheka was instructed to use the death penalty as the only punishment for “counterrevolutionaries.” The death penalty decree also allowed for people to be shot on the spot without trial. When regimes have a shoot-on-sight policy and ambiguous laws that allow for anybody to become a victim of persecution, violence can overpower every aspect of society.

In February 1922, the Cheka became the State Political Directorate, a secret police organization that functioned to serve the state. They would go through a few more name changes before becoming the Committee for State Security, or KGB.

The Cheka used many methods of torture on their victims, many of whom had not committed a crime nor been tried in court. Their methods included beating, skinning alive or scalping, using stretching devices, impaling, hanging, crucifying, water torture, heat and cold torture, beheading, twisting limbs or heads, making rats eat through the stomach of a person, sexual violence, and a litany of innovative ways to hurt another human being.

The Death Toll

Bolsheviks justified the campaign of violence on ideological grounds, claiming Marxism-Leninism called for the communists to use any available means to destroy the capitalists and class enemies.

They dehumanized those whom they considered enemies by calling them rats, snakes, louses, cockroaches, and more. This tactic aimed to turn the Russian citizens against one another, believing certain people were less human, diseased, unworthy, and ruining the Soviet Union in one way or the other.

Between 1917 and 1920, at least 12,000 people were killed, but the Soviet statistics indicated that only 766 people were executed in a judicial proceeding. That was almost twice the number of people sentenced to the death penalty between 1876 and 1905 in Russia under the tsarist government (Death Penalty Politics and Symbolic Law in Russia, 2013).

During the Russian Civil War, the Bolsheviks purged every city they conquered of the “class enemies.”

The exact number of victims will never be known because the Soviets intentionally hid information or fabricated records to hide the real death toll. As a result, there are unreliable, incomplete, and sometimes nonexistent records from which researchers can collect their data. Several scholars and historians have tried determining the death toll, and their estimates vary widely. Some even argue that the numbers have been inflated because of anti-communist propaganda.

Vadim Erlikhman estimated that at least 1.2 million people were killed during the Red Terror.

Robert Conquest believed that 140,000 people were shot by the Cheka just between the years of 1917 and 1922.

Nikolay Zayats wrote that during the four years of terror, about 50,000 people were shot through judicial and extrajudicial executions.

Charles Sarolea estimated that 1,766,188 people were killed during the Red Terror.

Sergei Volkov claimed the death toll was 2 million, however his calculations are not corroborated by other scholars.

Lenin’s Death and the Rise of Stalin

Vladimir Lenin died in 1924. Joseph Stalin, his successor, was less moderate, consolidating power and initiating more purging. Stalin ruled with an iron fist and an iron wall until his death in 1953.

The era known as Red Terror technically ended in 1922, but the repression continued. Fifteen years later, Stalin initiated the Great Purge.

From 1937 to 1938, during the Great Purge, about 1.5 million political opponents, religious leaders, kulaks, and Red Army leaders were arrested, and about half, at least 700,000 people, were sentenced to death.

During Stalin’s reign, a minimum of 14 million people were sent to forced labor camps (known as gulags), and another 7 to 8 million people were exiled or deported. The best estimates, based on the minimal evidence and unreliable records, are that 1-1.7 million people died in the gulags; however, Russians believe the number is much higher. People were sent away to labor camps where they died and were buried in mass graves, never spoken of again. Relatives continue to search for their family members, and burial pits continue to be uncovered.

Researchers began studying archival data that was finally declassified after the Soviet Union’s dissolution in 1991. They noticed that census data marked net losses of up to 10 million people in some cases. What historians have produced is that a bare minimum of 5.5 million people’s deaths can be directly attributed to Stalin’s regime, but the argument can be made that up to 20 million deaths should be attributed to Stalin.

That includes operations of ethnic cleansing, intentional famines like the Holodomor, executions, and deaths at forced labor camps.

However, by some estimates, more than 61 million people were killed as a result of the communist takeover and the creation of the Soviet Union.

Reference List:

Courtois, Stephanie, et al. (1999). The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression. Harvard University Press.

Hochschild, Adam. (2003). The Unquiet Ghost: Russians Remember Stalin. Mariner Books.

Kovago, Jozsef. (1959). You Are All Alone. Praeger.

Rayfield, Donald. (2004). Stalin and his Hangmen. Random House.

Rubinstein, David. (2001). Culture, Structure, and Agency: Toward a Truly Multidimensional Sociology. Sage Publications.

Rummel, R. J. and Horowitz, Irving Louis. (1994). Death by Government: Genocide and Mass Murder Since 1900. Routledge.

Sebag Montefiore, Simon. (2003). Stalin: The Court of the Red Tsar. Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Semukhina, Olga, and Galliher, John. (2013). Death Penalty Politics and Symbolic Law in Russia. Marquette University.

1968 was one of the most sociopolitically tumultuous years in American history, featuring aggressive movements against racism, the Vietnam War, and sexism. A large counterculture movement, whose adherents were often known as “the Hippies,” criticized the government and traditional social norms. Moderates were caught in the middle, often dissatisfied with the bloody Vietnam War, lingering racism, and institutionalized sexism but wary and exhausted of loud protests. After the riots at the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in Chicago in August 1968, the government put eight (later reduced to seven) anti-war protest leaders on trial. What would the Trial of the Chicago Seven reveal about America?

Setting the Stage: The Anti-War Movement

The Vietnam War became increasingly controversial in the United States as it escalated after the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution in the autumn of 1964. Despite more and more US ground forces committed, the communist forces of the North Vietnamese Army (NVA) and Viet Cong (VC) guerrillas remained unbeaten. Between 1965 and 1967, the administration of US President Lyndon Johnson frequently asserted that victory was close at hand. However, in January 1968, the Tet Offensive by NVA and VC forces across South Vietnam revealed that the enemy was still strong. This dramatically increased support for the anti-war movement, which had been growing over the past few years.

Unlike previous foreign wars, the Vietnam War was viewed with skepticism by many young Americans. Unlike World War I, World War II, and the Korean War, there was no definitive act of aggression against the US or its ally, South Vietnam. The Vietnam War, in fact, was allegedly provoked by the US and South Vietnam suspending elections that were to be held in 1956. Additionally, it was harder for many Americans to see the Vietnam War as crucial to US security, especially since it escalated over time instead of erupting with a large-scale invasion. Finally, the controversial nature of the draft (conscription) led many young Americans to see the government as willing to sacrifice innocent citizens in the name of halting the spread of communism.

August 1968: The DNC Riots

The year 1968 was one of the most tumultuous years in US history. After the surprising Tet Offensive, the US suffered through two tragic assassinations: Civil Rights leader Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was killed in April, and US Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-MA) was killed in June while running for president. US President Lyndon B. Johnson, a fellow Democrat, had announced in March that he would not run for re-election, sowing political turmoil. Unrest in America was high, particularly in urban areas—summers since 1965 had featured riots in major cities as minority communities reacted angrily to perceived racism and brutality in law enforcement.

Many protesters against the Vietnam War, the draft, racism, and the Johnson administration planned to protest at the Democratic National Convention (DNC), which would be held in Chicago at the end of August. Aware of the plans to protest, the Chicago police and Illinois National Guard were mobilized in force and told to deal aggressively with protesters. The DNC Riots erupted, though many onlookers blamed overly aggressive law enforcement for the violence. Famously, the violence was broadcast on television, coining the phrase “the whole world is watching!” on August 28, 1968. Ultimately, the DNC was relatively unaffected and chose Vice President Hubert Humphrey, who had not run in the primaries, as the party’s presidential nominee.

Autumn 1968: “Law and Order” Carries the Election

The DNC Riots did not have the intended effect on the public. Instead of sympathizing with the protesters, many middle-class Americans were tired of the past four years of urban unrest and demanded “law and order.” This was to the great advantage of Republican presidential nominee Richard Nixon, former vice president under Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was running on such a platform. Nixon claimed to represent the “silent majority” of Americans who were not loudly protesting and wanted to return to normalcy. Although Nixon’s surge of support after the DNC Riots eroded during the autumn, he kept enough to win the 1968 presidential election in November.

In the aftermath of the DNC Riots, the government investigated those allegedly responsible for the protests-turned-riots. Investigators focused on the Yippies (Youth International Party members), who had applied for public march permits in Chicago ahead of the DNC. In Congress, the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) investigated the riots, and two eventual members of the Chicago 7, Abbot “Abbie” Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, interrupted their proceedings with mockery. The National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence later issued the Walker Report, named after leader Daniel Walker, which blamed the police for escalating the violence.

Anti-Riot Provision of Civil Rights Act of 1968

The government had a new tool to prosecute the alleged instigators of the DNC Riots: the Federal Anti-Riot Act, or Title X of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. Those who engaged in interstate travel to incite, encourage, or participate in a riot could be charged under this Anti-Riot Act. The Act was inspired by the race riots of 1965-67, with critics arguing that the law was more of a tool for repressing African American protesters than preventing violence. Since many protesters at the 1968 Democratic National Convention had arrived from out of state, prosecutors could argue violation of this new law in federal court.

Historically, tension has always existed between the right to protest and the government’s mandate to maintain law and order. At what point does peaceable assembly, protected by the First Amendment of the US Constitution, become not peaceful? And what constitutes the definition of ambiguous terms like “incite” and “encourage”? 

Laws prohibiting “incitement of violence” became more common in the United States circa 1902, following the assassination of US President William McKinley. The Smith Act of 1940 was a federal law prohibiting any attempt to “advocate,” “abet,” or “teach” the violent overthrow of the US government, with the US Supreme Court narrowing its acceptable use in the late 1950s.

September 1969: Indictments of the Chicago 8

Using the Anti-Riot Act of 1968, a federal grand jury handed down indictments in March 1969 for eight protest leaders involved in the DNC Riots. The jury also indicted eight police officers. This would be the first prosecution under the Anti-Riot Act, providing a “law and order” test for the new Nixon administration. Six of the protest leaders indicted were widely known leftist advocates, while the remaining two had smaller profiles. As the outgoing Johnson administration had not pursued prosecutions, some thought the Nixon administration’s pursuit of trials was politically motivated.

Those indicted argued that they had only planned for peaceful assemblies, with Tom Hayden and Rennie Davis having written in May 1968 that violence would turn off potential supporters. Dave Dellinger, an avowed pacifist, had even accepted prison time during World War II rather than being drafted into the conflict. Thus, some viewers saw the prosecutions as political rather than legal, with the Nixon administration charging peaceful “hippies” with violence when the defendants had actually advocated anti-violence. The other five defendants, however, had no such anti-violence publications or speeches to provide a pre-made defense.

The (Mis)Trial of Bobby Seale

Controversially, one of the eight men charged by prosecutors was Bobby Seale, co-founder of the Black Panther Party. Seale had not planned any of the DNC protests and had only provided a single short speech to protesters in Chicago. Unfortunately for Seale, his inflammatory language in the speech was considered by some to advocate violence against police officers (though he only referenced using force after the officers struck first with “a billy club”). Linking Seale, a co-founder of the Black Panthers, to the anti-war protests could be seen as the Nixon administration pushing back against Civil Rights protests as well. 

Controversially, Seale was bound and gagged during trial after regularly rising to his feet to protest decisions made by federal district court judge Julius Hoffman, especially refusing to grant Seale a continuance or the right of self-representation when his desired lawyer was unavailable due to medical circumstances. Hoffman argued that binding and gagging Seale was necessary to maintain the trial, while critics argued that it was excessive and brutal. On November 3, 1969, after letting Seale return to the trial without restraints or the gag, Hoffman declared a mistrial on the conspiracy to incite a riot charge and sentenced the defendant to four years in prison for contempt of court after the defendant made another outburst.

The Chicago Seven on Trial

With Seale gone, the Chicago Eight became the Chicago Seven. Although not as disruptive as Bobby Seale, the remaining defendants were outspoken and irreverent in their dress and mannerisms, giving the media plenty of interesting coverage. Many newspaper readers (as cameras were not allowed in the courtroom) eagerly followed the trial, which was seen as putting the entire hippie, counterculture, and anti-war movements on trial. The crowded defense table, usually littered with debris from snacks, contrasted sharply with the orderly and suit-wearing prosecution table.

The prosecution witnesses included three law enforcement officers who had gone undercover as members of the leftist protest movements. Many observers felt that Judge Hoffman was heavily biased in favor of the prosecution and allowed inflammatory but irrelevant evidence, such as aggressive speeches made by defendants long before the DNC Riots. Simultaneously, Hoffman denied defendants the right to introduce pre-DNC writings calling for peaceful protest only. For three months, the courtroom was a relative circus as the seven defendants frequently refused to stand for the judge, used colorful language, and put their feet on the defense table.

Contempt Convictions of the Chicago Eight

Beginning with Bobby Seale, the eight defendants and two defense attorneys, William Kunstler and Leonard Weinglass, were held in contempt of court by Judge Hoffman. These convictions, made only by the judge instead of by the jury, were handed down shortly after the jury began deliberating on the charges of inciting a riot and conspiracy. Hoffman had even been hostile toward the defense’s pretrial lawyers, holding them in contempt and attempting to jail them, but was reversed by another federal court for failing to cite an offense.

Throughout the trial, the judge and the defense table verbally sparred with each other. Hoffman was openly antagonistic to the defense and portrayed them as outsiders before the Illinois jury, while defense attorneys Kunstler and Weinglass questioned Hoffman’s integrity. This sparring led to 159 convictions of contempt of court. Kunstler received a four-year total sentence for his counts of contempt of court, while Weinglass received a year and eight months. Of the Chicago Seven, Dave Dellinger received the most punishment—over 29 months—and John Froines and Lee Weiner received the least punishment at only five months.

February 1970: Verdicts Announced

With contempt of court sentences already handed down by Judge Hoffman, everyone awaited the jury’s verdict on the criminal charges. The jury struggled to find consensus during deliberation, but Hoffman ordered them to continue deliberating rather than declare a mistrial. Eventually, a compromise was reached, with the jury acquitting all defendants on the charge of conspiracy, finding that the Chicago Seven did not plan with each other. However, on February 18, 1970, the jury convicted five of the seven defendants on the charge of inciting a riot under the 1968 Anti-Riot Act. John Froines and Lee Weiner, the least known of the seven, were acquitted.

The five guilty men—Tom Hayden, Rennie Davis, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and Dave Dellinger—were all sentenced to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine each by Judge Hoffman on February 20. Each man was allowed to make a statement before sentencing, and they were collectively defiant. Most opined that the prosecution had made them far more powerful, as the public now knew their work. One commended Hoffman on becoming the country’s “top Yippie” by proving the Yippies’ points about criticizing mainstream conservatism. Another suggested the judge try LSD. 

November 1972: Appeals Court Reverses Convictions

The Chicago Seven and their two attorneys were released from jail on February 28, 1970 and promptly appealed their convictions. In May 1972, some contempt convictions were dismissed by the US Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, which found that Judge Hoffman had been too aggressive in citing the defense attorneys. A new district court judge upheld some of the contempt convictions but did not sentence the defendants to new punishments. The circuit court clarified that judges could not punish defense attorneys for “reasonable persistence” in defending their clients or for the misbehavior of clients when such behavior was not encouraged by the attorney.

On November 21, 1972, the Seventh Circuit overturned all criminal convictions of the Chicago 7. Although the court upheld the constitutionality of the Anti-Riot Act of 1968, it found that Judge Hoffman had been unfairly biased against the defendants. Hoffman’s behavior had been so egregious that it denied the defendants’ constitutional guarantee of a fair trial. Specifically, the appellate court criticized Hoffman’s demeanor toward the defense, as well as his allowing prosecutors to use inflammatory language when describing the defendants. In January 1973, the US Department of Justice announced that it would not re-try the defendants, allowing them to remain free. That same month, the United States agreed to end all combat operations in the Vietnam War as part of the Paris Peace Accords.

Over six centuries, 36 Ottoman Sultans ruled over an empire that spanned from central Europe to the Red Sea. Having to contend with religious, cultural, diplomatic, and ethnic tensions was not an easy task. Some managed to rise to the challenge, and some felt dismally short. These thirteen Sultans epitomize the rise and fall of the Ottoman Empire, from its humble beginnings, rapid expansion, gradual contraction, and to its eventual collapse.

1. Osman I (1299-1323/4)

Perhaps the most mysterious Ottoman sultan, Osman I, is also the very first. Even lending his name to the dynasty (in Arabic, he was ʿUthmān), there is no contemporary information regarding his reign. As a result, we are forced to rely on chronicles written a century after his reign.

Dispelling the many myths surrounding his sultanate, we can gather that Osman’s rule began in a beylik (equivalent to a principality) in northern Anatolia (modern-day Turkey). At the time, the region was divided, as various rulers tried to gain a foothold in the crumbling remnants of the Byzantine Empire.

Osman used this confusion to his advantage, slowly eroding Byzantine territory and some of his neighboring southern states. Although he never held the title of sultan, Osman I set in motion the gradual expansion of the Ottoman Empire and is revered as the founder of the Ottoman dynasty.

2. Murad I (1362-1389)

The third Ottoman Sultan, Murad I undertook the empire’s first major territorial expansion. Varying timelines are suggested, but it is agreed that sometime in the 1360s, Adrianople fell to the Ottomans. Murad quickly moved his capital there, where it would remain until 1453. The sultan then turned his attention further towards Europe, vassalizing Serbia, Bulgaria, and the Byzantines.

A key development during this reign was the founding of the Janissaries. Much like the Praetorians of Rome, they were an elite standing army that would dictate much of Ottoman political life going forward, often removing sultans who did not favor them.

Murad I also holds the distinction of being the only Ottoman sultan to ever be killed in battle. This occurred at the Battle of Kosovo (1389). In a clash which wiped out both the Ottoman and European armies, Murad was slain when a group of European knights made a direct line for him. Despite the devastation of the battle, the larger manpower pool allowed the Ottomans to press their advantage in the following year, solidifying their control over the Balkans. The Battle of Kosovo remains a key aspect of both Serbian and Kosovan nationalism.

3. Bayezid I (1389-1402)

Bayezid’s legacy as an Ottoman Sultan began with attempts to consolidate Anatolia and multiple failed attempts to conquer Constantinople. Perhaps his greatest success was victory in the Battle of Nicopolis (1396). A united Crusader army was destroyed in its attempt to siege the city, again with considerable losses on both sides.

The Crusader defeat meant that Europeans were less likely to unite to defend against the Ottomans, fearing similar devastation. Bayezid (Murad’s successor) also solidified his control over southern Europe, taking advantage of the weak Second Bulgarian Empire.

His reign ended in disaster with a defeat at the Battle of Ankara (1402). The emir of the Timurid Empire, Timur, overwhelmed a smaller Ottoman force and captured Bayezid. Humiliated in captivity, Bayezid I died the following year, with rumors swirling about whether he committed suicide or was poisoned.

Bayezid I’s death led to a ten-year period during which the Ottoman Empire was divided between his sons, who all attempted to seize power over the fragmented territory. This was the first major crack in Ottoman expansion, delaying the empire’s growth by a few decades.

4. Mehmed I (1413-1421)

The victorious son of Bayezid I, Mehmed I was the Ottoman sultan who by 1413 had reunited the Empire. Named ‘The Restorer,’ he centralized control in Anatolia and expanded the territory further in Europe, setting the wheels in motion again for Ottoman dominance.

However, a major naval defeat to Venice in 1416 checked Mehmed’s ambitions to conquer the seas. Instead, the Venetians would be the ones to dominate the Eastern Mediterranean, forcing Mehmed to turn his attention inland.

Ultimately, the legacy of Mehmed I was one of stability. Coming out of a decade of turmoil, he put down numerous revolts and brought the empire back under central control. In the chaos following Bayezid I’s defeat, Mehmed’s calming eight years as Sultan helped set the platform for the coming centuries of Ottoman dominance.

5. Mehmed II (1444-1446, 1451-1481)

The reign of this Ottoman Sultan can be summarized by his epithet: “The Conqueror.” Mehmed II did just that, overseeing a broad expansion of the empire in all directions. Mehmed had two stints as Sultan. The first began when the Janissaries forced his father, Murad II, to return to the throne. Mehmed would reclaim the title after his father’s death.

Mehmed began his reign by defeating a Hungarian Crusade and rebuilding the Ottoman navy. His greatest triumph came in 1453, when he captured Constantinople and brought an end to the Byzantine Empire, a goal of Middle Eastern Empires for nearly eight hundred years.

In addition to foreign policy triumphs, Mehmed’s domestic reforms brought Ottoman cities right to the forefront of cultural and scientific innovation. He was the first Ottoman sultan to codify both criminal and constitutional law, helping further stabilize the vast empire. His philosophy of strong personal rule would provide a blueprint for many of the great sultans to come in the following decades.

A mark of Mehmed’s acclaim came with his death. Throughout Europe, celebrations were held, a testament to the power and prestige that he had accumulated with his conquests. Even to this day, Mehmed the Conqueror is heralded as a hero in Turkey. He appears on Turkish currency, and a key bridge over the Bosphorus bears his name.

6. Selim I (1512-1520)

A grandson of Mehmed the Conqueror, Selim I began his reign through a civil war. After his father, Bayezid II, named Selim’s brother, Ahmet, to succeed to the throne, Selim rebelled. The Ottoman Civil War was concluded when Selim used Janissary support to overthrow his father and kill Ahmet, ensuring his own ascension.

Like Mehmed II, Selim’s epithet is also apt to describe his reign. Known for his brutal repression, he was given the name ‘The Grim.’ Even potential unrest was quickly put down, and anyone even suspected of treason was savagely executed. A devout Sunni Muslim, Selim I conducted massacres of Shiites across the Empire as he battled the neighboring Safavid Empire (based mostly in modern-day Iran).

Outside of this brutality, Selim I oversaw an incredible expansion of the Ottoman Empire. Despite being in power for only eight years, by the end of his reign, Ottoman territory had grown 70 percent. Victory over the Mamluk Sultanate brought control over the Levant and Egypt.

Selim’s legacy is therefore mixed. His violent and ruthless reputation is weighed against his impressive territorial gain. Regardless, he was crucial in transforming the Ottoman Empire, putting it in a position to further its golden age under his son, Suleiman.

7. Suleiman I (1520-1566)

A list of key Ottoman Sultans would be incomplete without one named ‘The Magnificent.’ The son of Selim I, he continued his father’s conquests, becoming the longest-reigning Sultan in Ottoman history (46 years).

Under his rule, the Ottoman Empire dominated both land and sea. Grand victories brought further control over Europe, Persia, the Red Sea, and the Mediterranean. Suleiman rendered the Kingdom of Hungary useless, absorbing much of it into the Empire.

Suleiman also presided over a cultural ‘Golden Age,’ through extensive domestic reform. He brought disparate Ottoman law codes together and encouraged poets and artists to take up residence in the imperial court. The sultan personally gave patronage to forty artistic societies, including numerous construction projects.

A controversial moment came when he married a European consort, Roxelana, who would go on to play a central role in Ottoman politics in the following years (previously, only freeborn women were considered ‘worthy’ to marry a sultan).

One of the last sultans to expand his territory, Suleiman the Magnificent’s reign may be the high point of the Ottoman Empire. The decades following his death were known as the ‘Era of Transformation,’ where the empire slowly consolidated and was beset by a growing number of crises. Suleiman’s renown reverberated across the known world even after his death, being mentioned decades later by Shakespeare in The Merchant of Venice.

8. Murad IV (1623-1640)

Reigning since he was only eleven, this Ottoman sultan rose to power thanks to a Janissary coup and spent his early reign under the regency of his mother. After years of turmoil, Murad was able to restore order to a struggling empire, brutally cracking down on mutineers and anyone hinting at insurrection.

His defining legacy came with a decisive war against the Safavids. Ottoman forces were able to seize Baghdad and maintain their gains in Mesopotamia. The ensuing partition of territory, particularly in the Caucasus, would mirror the borders of modern-day Turkey, Iran, and Iraq.

Unfortunately, many of his domestic reforms were curbed by his early death from alcoholism, leaving his (reportedly) mentally unwell brother, Ibrahim the Mad, to rule.

9. Mehmed IV (1648-1687)

Beginning his reign even earlier, at the age of six, Mehmed IV would be the second-longest-reigning Ottoman Sultan. After his father, Ibrahim the Mad, was overthrown so that he could rule, Mehmed’s reign was beset by instability.

However, through careful use of his Viziers (advisors), he managed to stabilize the Ottoman Empire and bring it to its greatest geographical extent in Europe. Nicknamed ‘The Hunter,’ Mehmed delegated many of the official tasks of state, using the Köprülü family as his closest advisers.

This success could only last so long, as Europe soon came together to stop the Ottoman advance. The Holy League, comprising the Holy Roman Empire, the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Russia, and Venice, united in the Great Turkish War, hoping to prevent Mehmed from advancing further north.

The war was a resounding victory for the League, and the Ottomans were forced to cede much territory in central Europe. This was the first major reversal of Ottoman expansion in centuries, making the Habsburgs the dominant dynasty within Europe.

Despite his early successes, Mehmed IV’s rule was an indicator of the gradual decline of the empire. Unable to hold its own weight, it slowly contracted, beset on all sides by its enemies. Mehmed was overthrown early into the Great Turkish War by his own soldiers, a sign that he was able to delay the splintering of the Ottoman dynasty but not stop it completely.

10. Mahmud II (1808-1839)

Mahmud II’s legacy as Ottoman Sultan was marked by both domestic reform and foreign policy disasters.

He was finally able to disband the Janissaries, allowing him to centralize authority and rebuild the Ottoman army. The Imperial Court was also modernized, increasing administrative efficiency and setting in motion an era of reform that would radically alter the Empire in the following decades.

However, territory-wise, Mahmud’s reign continued the trend of previous decades. He lost territory to Russia in two Russo-Turkish Wars, was forced to recognize Greek autonomy, and ceded Algeria to France.

Attempts were made to bring the Ottoman Empire into the fold of the European Great Powers, so that they could negotiate on equal footing and not as an afterthought. This was a feat that would eventually be achieved by his son, Abdülmecid I. He was able to ally with the United Kingdom and France, and attended the Congress of Paris in 1856, a sign that they were part of the ‘Concert of Europe.’

11. Abdul Hamid II (1876-1909)

Abdul Hamid II was the last Ottoman sultan to rule directly over any empire of note. Throughout his reign, he was forced to give up Bulgaria, Cyprus, Egypt, Montenegro, Thessaly, and Tunisia.

There were some positives to his leadership, however. Abdul Hamid continued the modernization of the empire, particularly with the construction of railways and the expansion of the education system.

This reform was put on soon, as the Ottomans soon found themselves in crisis. The triple threat of uprisings in Europe, another war with Russia, and an economic crisis caused by defaulting on loans made it impossible to maintain the Empire. Soon, Abdul Hamid II found himself under the control of the Concert of Europe to help alleviate the crises, a reversal of Abdülmecid I’s previous efforts.

Foreign pressure soon triggered domestic crises as several revolutionary groups sprang up, as they had across Europe. The sultan’s response was brutal repression, cracking down violently on any dissent, as many of his predecessors had done. However, this did not manage to quiet the discontent, and he was deposed by the Young Turks.

Abdul Hamid II’s legacy may be the most disputed today. Initially, he was viewed as backward in his views and a hindrance to the Ottoman Empire (named ‘The Red Sultan’ for his bloodshed). Yet, future generations of revisionists saw him as a heroic last stand of leadership, assertive in the spirit of Selim I and Suleiman the Magnificent. The division remains today, often falling along political lines in Turkey.

12 & 13. Mehmed V and Mehmed VI (1909-1918/1918-1922)

These two Ottoman sultans are grouped together for their involvement in World War I and the subsequent breakup of the Ottoman Empire.

Before the war even started, Mehmed V’s rule lurched from one crisis to another. He saw three separate coups d’état, a war with Italy that resulted in the loss of Libya, the loss of almost all Ottoman territory in Europe, and ten governments in ten years.

Throughout World War I, the Ottoman Empire was able to defend against an Allied invasion at Gallipoli. However, by the end of the conflict, it had been driven back to Mesopotamia. At the time, the Committee for Union and Progress was running the country, and Mehmed V’s power was significantly diminished. It was during this time that the Armenian genocide was carried out, which the sultan was unable to prevent or stop.

Mehmed V died in the summer of 1918, right as the Central Powers were definitively losing the war. He was succeeded by his half-brother, Mehmed VI—the last Ottoman Sultan.

This new sultan attempted to improve relations with the West in the aftermath of World War I, but was helpless to do so. Greece and Armenia declared independence, and Turkish nationalists created their own government in Ankara. These greatly weakened the empire, and on November 1, 1922, the Sultanate was abolished. Soon after, the Republic of Turkey was established, ending six hundred years of Ottoman rule.

Whilst it is commonly agreed that there is little that either Mehmed could have done to prevent the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, there are still debates to this day over how responsible Mehmed VI was for the rise of Turkish nationalism. He gave Mustafa Kemal Atatürk tremendous support throughout World War I and its aftermath through powerful appointments and supplies. Ataturk would use that same support to overthrow the Sultanate.

Despite being overthrown, the Ottoman dynasty still survives to this day, with all descendants being allowed to return by 1973.

American foreign policy shifted on December 2, 1823, when President James Monroe announced the Monroe Doctrine in his yearly address to Congress. President Monroe reaffirmed that European colonial expansion in the Western Hemisphere would be considered a hostile act to the US, while also pledging non-intervention in European matters. Despite this bold declaration, the US lacked the military, especially naval, strength to enforce it. Instead, the British Royal Navy played a decisive role in upholding the doctrine throughout much of the 19th century, aligning it with Britain’s own economic and political interests in the Americas.

Why & How the Monroe Doctrine Was Born

The origins of the Monroe Doctrine can be found as early as 1783, when the United States declared the policy of isolationism following the American Revolution.

American historian Samuel Eliot Morison pointed out that:

“as early as 1783, then, the United States adopted the policy of isolation and announced its intention to keep out of Europe. The supplementary principle of the Monroe Doctrine, that Europe must keep out of America, was still over the horizon.”

By 1823, the Latin American Republics had achieved long-awaited independence and diplomatic recognition from the United States. These territories had been under Spain’s colonial rule for centuries. The Napoleonic Wars and the subsequent invasion of Spain in 1808 weakened Spain’s colonial control, laying the foundation for the Spanish colonies to seek independence. In the following years, the waves of the independence movement spread across Latin America.

When Napoleon Bonaparte was defeated in 1815, the Congress of Vienna did not take into consideration the independence struggles in Latin America. However, the United States saw the opportunity to support the revolutions in the Western hemisphere. The Congress of Vienna intended to restore the balance of power in Europe, reinstate monarchies, and prevent the spread of revolutionary movements. On the other hand, the United States, influenced by its own revolutionary past and economic interests, viewed the colonies’ independence movement as a way to weaken European dominance in the Americas.

The formation of the Holy Alliance on September 23, 1815, changed the power dynamics. The alliance, composed of the European powers of Austria, Prussia, and Russia, aimed to strengthen monarchism in post-Napoleonic Europe. To achieve this goal, the Holy Alliance authorized the use of military force to re-establish the rule of the Bourbon dynasty over Spain and its colonies. At the same time, France had already agreed to re-establish monarchy in Spain in exchange for control over Cuba.

As a constitutional monarchy, Great Britain did not join the Holy Alliance, whose members supported the principle of absolutism. Instead, British Foreign Secretary George Canning proposed to American President James Monroe a joint Anglo-American action that would constrain the Holy Alliance’s influence in the Western Hemisphere.

The British proposal was dictated by several calculations. In particular, as a great European power, Britain sought to maintain its current colonies as well as expand territorially to meet the increasing demand for new markets and sustain its quick industrialization. While the Spanish Empire struggled to survive, and France was still weak from the Napoleonic Wars, Britain remained the only European power able to influence the power dynamics with the United States, whether through support or coercion.

In 1821, the Russian Empire also entered the contest between the powers set on gaining influence in the Western hemisphere with the Ukase (proclamation), claiming territorial sovereignty over northwestern North America (present-day Alaska) and most of the Pacific Northwest. Under this proclamation, the Russian Empire also forbade non-Russian ships from approaching the coast.

Simultaneously, the Monroe administration was negotiating with Spain to purchase Florida to increase its influence in the region. The negotiation resulted in the Transcontinental Treaty, signed in 1821. Following this, the United States proceeded to recognize the Latin American republics of Argentina, Chile, Peru, Colombia, and Mexico as independent states in 1822.

While the United States sought to keep the old European colonial powers out of the Americas, the Monroe administration recognized that the United States lacked the necessary military strength to achieve this goal. As the historian Caitlin Fitz pointed out: “Great Britain was the preeminent global power, while the United States was little more than a “second-ring show in the high-strung Atlantic circus.”

Although President Monroe did not turn down British suggestion to join forces to deter European colonialism in the Western hemisphere, Secretary of State John Quincy Adams disagreed, claiming that “It would be more candid as well as more dignified to avow our principles explicitly to Russia and France, than to come in as a cockboat in the wake of the British man-of-war.”

Despite these concerns, the conflux of interests between the two countries, ensuring the stability and independence of Latin American republics while preventing European intervention, led to the creation of the Monroe Doctrine, proclaimed by the United States, but enforced by the Royal Navy of Great Britain.

The Monroe Doctrine

In his yearly address to Congress on December 2, 1823, President James Monroe unveiled a new American foreign policy strategy, later known as the Monroe Doctrine. According to this doctrine, the New and Old Worlds, having distinct socio-political systems, should remain divided.

James Monroe outlined four key points of the new approach:

• The United States would refrain from interfering in the internal affairs or the military conflicts between European powers.
• The United States would recognize and would not be involved in the affairs of the existing European colonies in the Western Hemisphere.
• The remaining territories of the Western Hemisphere were closed to future colonization.
• Any attempt by a European power to gain control over any nation in the Western Hemisphere would be viewed as a hostile act against the United States.

The address read:

“In the wars of the European powers in matters relating to themselves we have never taken any part, nor does it comport with our policy so to do. It is only when our rights are invaded or seriously menaced that we resent injuries or make preparations for our defense.…With the existing colonies or dependencies of any European power, we have not interfered and shall not interfere. But with the governments who have declared their independence and maintained it, and whose independence we have, on great consideration and just principles, acknowledged, we could not view any interposition to oppress them or control in any other manner their destiny, by any European power in any other light than as the manifestation of an unfriendly disposition toward the United States.”

Initially, President Monroe’s address was not perceived as the foundation of a foreign policy “doctrine” but rather as an answer to the security challenges and the compromise between passive and aggressive policy options in light of the rising threat of the re-colonization of the newly independent republics in Latin America by the reactionary European powers.

According to author Leonard Axel Lawson, avoiding entering the Anglo-American alliance and instead declaring the unilateral Monroe Doctrine was part of Secretary Adams’s diplomatic game. In his book The Relation of British Policy to the Declaration of the Monroe Doctrine (1922), Lawson argues: 

“England possessed, at that time, a navy as large as the combined navies of all the other powers of the world; and, insofar as the existence of the British navy compelled respect for those interests, it also compelled respect for and observance of the Monroe Doctrine.”

Indeed, Secretary of State Adams, in explaining his position regarding the relation with Great Britain, declared: “My reliance upon the cooperation of Great Britain rested not upon her principles but upon her interests.”

By adopting the Monroe Doctrine, the United States needed a formidable maritime presence, especially a powerful navy, to safeguard the vast coastline of the Americas from European colonial powers’ intervention. The British Royal Navy would play a decisive role in enforcing the doctrine throughout the 19th century, even if it acted out of self-interest in expanding and maintaining trade relations.

The British Royal Navy’s Role in Enforcing the Monroe Doctrine

In the 19th century, the British Royal Navy maintained a dominant presence in key strategic regions, particularly the Atlantic Ocean, the Caribbean Sea, and the South Atlantic, to prevent European intervention in the Americas and to deploy rapidly in case of a threat.

One such example was the Falkland Islands Dispute in 1833, when Britain deployed its fleet to curb Argentina’s claim over the islands. While Argentina was not a European nation, Great Britain illustrated its intention to uphold the Monroe Doctrine with this move.

Similarly, when France invaded Mexico and installed Emperor Maximilian I, a French-backed monarch, in December 1860, Britain decided to withdraw its support for France in 1866. Without British diplomatic and naval support, France was forced to retreat from Mexico.

The event effectively deterred future French ambitions in the region and reinforced the Monroe Doctrine.

Theodore Roosevelt’s Corollary & the End of British Royal Navy Dominance

During the second half of the 19th century, the United States emerged as a leading naval power.

By this time, the United States had undergone a rapid industrialization process and expanded its economy and infrastructure through global trade. Regarding territorial expansion, in 1867, the United States acquired strategic locations such as Alaska. However, the Spanish-American War of 1898 appeared to be a turning point. The United States emerged victorious and gained control over former Spanish territories, including Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines. This victory demonstrated American military strength and capabilities.

This period also saw the influence of Alfred Thayer Mahan’s naval theories, which emphasized the importance of a strong navy for acquiring and maintaining global influence. Alfred Thayer Mahan’s naval theories inspired Theodore Roosevelt who emerged as a leading maritime strategist. After 1901, when Roosevelt became the president of the United States, he linked the Monroe Doctrine to his new foreign policy approach. In this context, he secured the construction of the Panama Canal connecting the Atlantic and Pacific oceans and sent 16 battleships, also known as the Great White Fleet, on a world tour.

The introduction of the Roosevelt Corollary to the Monroe Doctrine in 1904 marked the beginning of the United States actively enforcing the doctrine itself, rather than relying on the British fleet. The Roosevelt Corollary ensured that the United States could intervene in the internal affairs of the Latin American countries if necessary. Throughout the 20th century, the United States would play a decisive role in world politics as a new global power.

Dolours and Marian Price were involved in Irish republicanism during the decades-long conflict that became known as the Troubles. After the two sisters joined the IRA in the early 1970s, they were soon charged for their involvement in the 1973 IRA bombings in London. Whilst imprisoned, they went on a hunger strike that lasted over 200 days. The Price sisters were also part of the “Unknowns,” a secret unit responsible for many disappearances during the Troubles, including that of Jean McConville.

The Price Sisters: Irish Republicanism Runs in Their Blood

Andytown, or Andersonstown, is a suburb in the western part of Northern Ireland’s capital city, Belfast. Nestled beneath two hills that perch high above the city, Andersonstown is a predominantly Catholic, nationalist area of the city. Though it is now a family-friendly, peaceful part of Belfast, it once teemed with paramilitary activity during the Troubles. It was in this suburb that Dolours and Marian Price were reared by a family entrenched in Irish republican ideology.

Dolours Price, born in 1950, and Marian Price, born in 1954, were exposed to Irish republicanism from an early age. Their father was a staunch Irish republican and former member of the Irish Republican Army (IRA). Likewise, their mother (and grandmother) were part of the all-female faction of the IRA, the Cumann na mBan. Bridie Dolan, aunt to the Price sisters, lived with the family, and she, too, was a faithful Irish republican. In her twenties, she lost her eyesight and her hands when she accidentally dropped the explosives she was handling for the IRA.

The girls grew up hearing stories about their parents taking part in bombings and other paramilitary activities, fostering their desire to follow in their family members’ footsteps. The sisters decided from an early age that they wouldn’t stand on the sidelines of the republican cause but would instead take direct action for a united Ireland.

Civil Rights Activists

After attending school in west Belfast, including a teacher-training course, the Price sisters decided they would make more of a difference in their community if they took part in political activism. In 1969, they participated in the Belfast to Londonderry/Derry civil rights march, where they were attacked by loyalists during the Burntollet Bridge incident.

The Burntollet Bridge illustrated the political and civil unrest that had begun months prior in Northern Ireland. Marchers protested gerrymandering, or the manipulation of electoral districts. They called for freedom of speech and fair representation in jobs and housing in Londonderry/Derry, as Catholics were often discriminated against compared to Protestants.

However, during the march, activists were attacked by Ulster loyalists. Many Catholics felt that the police force in Northern Ireland, the Royal Ulster Constabulary (RUC), did not protect the marchers from loyalist attackers, furthering the already ignited tensions between nationalist and unionist communities.

The Price family was familiar with the RUC, as the force had raided the Price home before due to perceived IRA connections. The Burntollet Bridge incident was a turning point for the two women, inspiring them to take up arms alongside the IRA.

“Crazy Prices”

Two years later, in 1971, Dolours Price became the first woman to gain full membership in the IRA. Her membership came on the heels of the reintroduction of internment, a policy by which people, mostly republicans, were imprisoned without a trial. This policy influenced many young people to become “volunteers” for the IRA, prepared to lose their lives or commit acts of terrorism for Irish independence. Marian followed soon after.

The Price sisters walked the streets of Belfast armed, sometimes hiding rifles under their coats for potential confrontations with the British Army. They moved explosives for the IRA, using their charming, self-assured personalities to get through British Army checkpoints. Locally, they were known as the “Crazy Prices.” The sisters were also involved in high-profile paramilitary activity.

In March of 1973, bombs were set off in London. A bomb exploded in a car outside the Old Bailey, the Central Criminal Court in London, and one outside of Westminster. The city had been warned before the bombs exploded, though over 200 people were still injured, and one person died of a heart attack. The IRA was behind the bombing, and Dolours herself took responsibility for the campaign. She believed that bombing London would make more of a statement rather than bombing Belfast, so she, along with Marian and other IRA volunteers, planned the attack.

The group managed to steal four cars in Belfast and refit them with English license plates, shipping them on a ferry across the sea. Bombs were planted in all four cars, and they were all set to explode before 3 pm. However, an informer within the IRA had tipped off the British police, and the authorities were prepared to thwart the attack. In total, two bombs exploded before the police could detonate them.

The IRA volunteers were found at London’s Heathrow Airport, ready to board a flight to Dublin. In total, eight volunteers, including the Price sisters, were convicted and received double life sentences.

A Hunger for Ireland

Once imprisoned, the Price sisters decided to go on a hunger strike. Throughout Irish history, Irish prisoners had used fasting and starvation as a form of protest and as an example of their willingness to die for Ireland. In the early 20th century, Irish and British suffragettes alike used hunger strikes to protest the lack of women’s rights during the suffragette movement.

In 1981, in the midst of the Troubles, Bobby Sands and nine others died on hunger strike as they worked to put pressure on Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her government. Years before, though, Dolours and Marian had begun their own hunger strike, demanding to be transferred to a prison in Northern Ireland and to be recognized as political prisoners.

Due to public outcry over the sisters being fed against their will in prison, the British government discontinued their force-feedings, though the two continued with their hunger strike for more than 200 days. They were eventually transferred to Armagh prison in Northern Ireland. Dolours spent six years in Armagh and was eventually released because of her physical deterioration. Likewise, Marian was released in 1980 due to her health decline.

The “Unknowns”

Dolours belonged to the “Unknowns,” a secret unit in the IRA, and it is believed Marian was also part of the elusive group. The unit was responsible for a number of disappearances during the Troubles, including that of Jean McConville. McConville was a mother of ten who went missing in Belfast in 1972.

After being seen helping a British soldier and with rumors spreading that she was an informer, McConville was abducted by the IRA. It is believed Dolours was one of the volunteers who aided in her disappearance, driving her across the Irish border where she was held captive and later murdered. However, it is also rumored that Marian was the one to kill McConville after Dolours had confided to a number of people that Marian was the murderer. McConville’s body was found in 2003 on Shelling Hill Beach in County Louth in the Republic of Ireland.

That same year, Dolours was part of the kidnapping and disappearance of Seamus Wright after it was discovered he was a double agent for the British Army. Price drove him and Kevin McKee, a teenager who was also discovered to be an informer, across the border. Both were executed and secretly buried. In 1999, the IRA admitted that it had murdered nine out of the 16 “Disappeared,” people who had been abducted, murdered, and interred in remote locations by republicans during the Troubles. The remains of three of the victims have never been found.

The Price Sister’s Lives After the Good Friday Agreement

After she was released, Dolours moved to Dublin, where she worked as a journalist and married the actor Stephen Rea. When the Good Friday Agreement was signed in 1998, both sisters criticized it, believing the deal did not justify the suffering the people of Belfast went through during the Troubles. In the early 2000s, she contributed to the Belfast Project.

Based out of Boston College in Massachusetts, the project was an oral history archive intended to document people’s experiences during the Troubles. The director of the project was Ed Moloney, an Irish reporter who had extensive experience interviewing paramilitaries. Dolours was one of more than 40 paramilitaries who were interviewed. She detailed her experiences within the IRA, particularly her participation in disappearances. She revealed that she had driven Joe Lynskey, an IRA volunteer who was caught having an affair with the wife of another IRA member, across the border to his death.

Dolours was also known for speaking out against Gerry Adams. Adams is an Irish politician, civil rights activist, and former president of Sinn Fein, a democratic socialist party present in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. He was also instrumental during the peace process. Dolours disclosed Adams as her commanding officer in the IRA, though he adamantly denies this claim. Until her death in 2013, Dolours supported a united Ireland.

In 2009, Marian Price was arrested in connection with the attack on the Massereene Barracks in Northern Ireland. The attack left two British soldiers dead. She was charged with supporting an act of terrorism by providing an object for the purpose of a terrorist attack. She was later charged with supporting an illegal organization after presenting at a rally in Londonderry/Derry, which commemorated the Easter Rising. In 2011, she was imprisoned but was released in 2013 after protests.

In late 2024, Marian spoke out against her alleged involvement in the disappearance of Jean McConville. In the TV adaptation of Say Nothing, journalist Patrick Radden Keefe’s book detailing the Troubles, Marian is depicted murdering Jean McConville. She has threatened to sue Disney+ over the depiction, saying that she had nothing to do with the disappearance or murder. However, Keefe supports the claim that Marian murdered McConville.

The Price sisters were complicated and controversial figures, representing not only the cost of the Troubles in Ireland as a whole but also of families caught in the crossfires of the conflict.

The extinction of the Rurikid dynasty in Russia at the end of the 16th century sparked a 15-year period of political turmoil known as the Time of Troubles. During this period, Russia suffered a disastrous famine, the enthronement of a pretender of uncertain origins, unpopular aristocratic rule, and military intervention by Poland and Sweden, which encouraged the formation of patriotic Russian militias that liberated Moscow and restored order with the election of Mikhail Romanov as tsar in 1613.

The Extinction of the Rurikids

The Time of Troubles came about as a result of the extinction of the main Rurikid line—the Grand Princes of Moscow, who claimed descent from the Viking chieftain Rurik—in 1598. This had much to do with Tsar Ivan IV, better known as Ivan the Terrible, who had consolidated his power by executing rival claimants from his extended family.

Ivan the Terrible’s intended successor was his eldest son, Tsarevich Ivan Ivanovich. It is generally accepted that the tsarevich died in November 1581 after an altercation with his father, who chastised Ivan’s wife for not being suitably dressed while pregnant. When the tsarevich intervened on behalf of his wife, the tsar struck his son with his staff in a fit of rage. A famous painting by Ilya Repin depicts the tsar cradling the bloodied head of his mortally wounded son in a display of remorse.

When Ivan the Terrible died in 1584, he was succeeded by his surviving adult son, Fyodor Ivanovich. Nicknamed Fyodor the Bellringer for his piety, the new tsar may have had a mental disability and certainly lacked interest in state affairs, leaving the business of government in the hands of his minister Boris Godunov, the brother of his wife Irina.

When Fyodor became tsar, there was only one other possible successor from the Rurikid line. Fyodor’s half-brother, Tsarevich Dmitry, was born in 1582, but since his mother, Maria Nagaya, was Ivan IV’s sixth wife, the marriage was considered illegitimate by the Orthodox Church. Boris Godunov had them sent to the faraway town of Uglich, where Dmitry was found dead in 1591. While a delegation from Moscow concluded that the child died in a freak accident, it was rumored that Boris was responsible.

Boris Godunov

During the 16th century, the Russian state had tripled in size, and the military expenditure to support this expansion placed a significant tax burden on peasants. The exploitation of the peasantry, combined with population growth, high inflation, and a colder climate caused a series of famines at the turn of the 17th century.

As Tsar Fyodor’s regent, Boris restored order to state administration, albeit at the expense of making powerful enemies among leading Russian aristocrats known as boyars. Meanwhile, Boris’s efforts to address the economic challenges by enserfing peasants—restricting their movement to prevent the further dwindling of the tax base—did little to arrest the economic decline. This gave peasants even greater incentives to run away and become Cossacks on Russia’s southern frontier. Boris’s economic policies not only worsened the conditions of the peasantry but also reduced the status of the lower gentry, who served as militiamen for the tsarist army.

When Tsar Fyodor died childless in January 1598, marking the extinction of the Rurikid line, Boris was the obvious candidate to succeed to the throne. While his rivals amplified rumors of his involvement in the Uglich tragedy, Boris prevailed and was crowned in September.

As an excellent administrator and effective diplomat, Tsar Boris temporarily ended costly wars with Russia’s neighbors, but his reign was overshadowed by the Great Famine of 1601-1603. While he responded energetically by making state grain reserves available to hungry peasants at low prices, he struggled to overcome speculators who manipulated grain prices by buying up the supply. The famine killed around two million people, or just under a third of Russia’s population.

False Dmitry

The Great Famine—now understood to have been caused by global cooling following the eruption of the Huaynaputina volcano in Peru in February 1600—ruined the tsar’s reputation among his subjects. God-fearing Orthodox Russians believed that God was punishing Russia for choosing an illegitimate and sinful tsar, leading many to conclude that Boris had indeed murdered Tsarevich Dmitry.

Nevertheless, Tsar Boris did not face a major threat to his rule during the famine. The Russians still needed a tsar, and the alternative candidates were equally illegitimate. This was until 1604 when a young man claiming to be Tsarevich Dmitry invaded Russia at the head of a small army consisting of Cossacks and Polish soldiers.

When “Dmitry” emerged in Poland-Lithuania in 1603, King Sigismund III of Poland saw an opportunity to turn a rival state into an ally. Upon hearing the news, Boris claimed that the young man was a dangerous runaway monk named Grigory Otrepyev. While few people genuinely believed that the young man was Dmitry, it was enough for the anti-Godunov coalition in Russia to have an alternative candidate who could convincingly present himself as a prince of the Rurikid line.

After Dmitry crossed into Russia in October 1604 at the head of 4,000 men, several cities in southern Russia declared in his favor. On December 21, the rebel army defeated a much larger tsarist force near Novgorod-Seversky (now Novhorod-Siverskyi in Ukraine). Dmitry’s ranks swelled by the day, but a month later, he was defeated at Dobrynichi and barely escaped capture.

Rather than effectively pursuing the pretender, the tsarist forces allowed him to recover and carried out atrocities against the civilian population in regions that had supported Dmitry, while a large tsarist army fruitlessly besieged Kromy near Oryol, some 200 miles south of Moscow.

The tsarist cause was fatally weakened with Boris Godunov’s death on April 13. Although the boyars in Moscow initially swore allegiance to Boris’s 16-year-old son, Fyodor II, the defection of senior tsarist commanders Pyotr Basmanov and Vasily Golitsyn from the siege camp at Kromy proved decisive in bringing about the downfall of Fyodor II on June 11. On June 20, the deposed Tsar Fyodor and his mother were killed in captivity. The same day, the pretender entered Moscow in triumph and was welcomed as the new tsar.

The Fall of the Pretender

Dmitry was crowned tsar on July 21, becoming the first and only individual in Russian history to be raised to the throne by popular rebellion. Aside from the killing of the Godunovs and the banishment of Godunov’s ally Patriarch Job, the new tsar was magnanimous towards his foes. When the ambitious boyar Vasily Shuisky attempted to seize the throne for himself, Dmitry briefly exiled him and recalled him to the boyar council within a matter of months.

While Dmitry was rumored to have sworn allegiance to King Sigismund, offering to convert Russia to Catholicism and to cede large tracts of land to Poland, he took no steps to do so in power. However, his tolerance of Catholics, Protestants, Jews, and other religious groups caused some discomfort among the Orthodox faithful. Dmitry’s relationship with the Russian Orthodox Church deteriorated in late 1605 when he planned to marry the Polish princess Marina Mniszech. To the dismay of senior Orthodox clergy, Dmitry supported his bride’s refusal to convert to Orthodoxy. This amplified rumors that he was a secret Catholic.

Following his recall to the capital, Vasily Shuisky continued plotting to remove the tsar. He decided to strike on the occasion of Dmitry’s wedding in May 1606, shortly before the tsar planned to leave on a campaign against the Crimean Tatars.

Despite warnings of a plot against him, Dmitry took few precautions. On May 17, Shuisky spread rumors that the Polish wedding guests were intending to murder the tsar and all the Russians in Moscow. While an enraged mob stormed the Kremlin and hunted down the Poles, a group of conspirators broke into Dmitry’s quarters. The tsar attempted to escape out of a window but stumbled and fell, enabling the conspirators to catch up to him and kill him.

Tsar Vasily

Vasily Shuisky quickly moved to seize power and denounced the late tsar as an evil sorcerer and imposter. The dead tsar’s mangled body was initially put on public display before being cremated, after which the ashes were supposedly fired from a cannon towards Poland. Vasily hastily arranged his coronation as Tsar Vasily IV for June 1 before conveying the real Dmitry’s body to Moscow for burial and veneration as a saint.

After Shuisky’s opponents on the boyar council appointed his rival Filaret Romanov as the patriarch of Moscow, Tsar Vasily purged the council and appointed Metropolitan Hermogenes of Kazan as the new patriarch. The elderly Hermogenes proved an energetic ally to Vasily and helped him secure his hold on Moscow.

In the Russian countryside, Dmitry’s supporters claimed that he had miraculously escaped assassination once again and was still alive. Southern Russia once again rose up in rebellion in Dmitry’s name. By fall, rebel commander Ivan Bolotnikov relieved the siege of Kromy and occupied Oryol. By October, rebel columns led by Bolotnikov and Istoma Pashkov were laying siege to Moscow. However, the rebel commanders had fallen out, and elite tsarist forces under Vasily’s nephew, Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky, crushed the rebels on December 2.

Bolotnikov retreated to Kaluga and defeated besieging forces in early 1607 before falling back on Tula. Vasily personally led a large army to besiege Tula, and the tsarist army captured the city in October after diverting the waters of the river Upa. Despite Vasily’s promises to spare his life, Bolotnikov was killed in secret, and many of the rebels rallied to the banner of a man who claimed to be the resurrected Tsar Dmitry.

This new pretender, known to history as False Dmitry II, established his camp at Tushino to the northwest of Moscow and besieged the capital for the next 18 months. Filaret Romanov arrived in Tushino and was reconfirmed as patriarch of Moscow, while Marina Mniszech “recognized” her husband.

Although the rebels surrounded Moscow almost completely, the actions of rebel soldiers in the countryside inspired popular uprisings on behalf of the tsar. In the meantime, Prince Skopin-Shuisky led a force of Swedish mercenaries to defeat the rebels northwest of Moscow, and “Dmitry” was forced to leave Tushino in December 1609.

A Polish Tsar?

As a result of the agreement between Sweden and the Shuiskys, Russia came to serve as a new front for the Polish-Swedish War of 1600-1611. In September 1609, King Sigismund led a Polish army to besiege Smolensk while False Dmitry II rallied new support south of Moscow. The anti-Shuisky boyars considered offering the throne to Sigismund’s son Władysław on condition that he would convert to Orthodoxy.

Tsar Vasily’s cause was undermined by the unexpected death of Mikhail Skopin-Shuisky in April 1610, and it was widely believed that the tsar had murdered his popular nephew to prevent him from challenging his throne. On July 4, 1610, a Polish army decisively defeated a Russian force at Klushino.

The defeat encouraged Shuisky’s enemies to depose him two weeks later and imprison him in a Kremlin monastery. With Polish troops heading towards Moscow, a council of seven boyars headed by Fyodor Mstislavsky formally offered the crown to Władysław.

The Polish commander Stanisław Żółkiewski invited senior Russian dignitaries, including Filaret Romanov, Vasily Golitsyn, and the former Tsar Vasily, to the Polish siege camp at Smolensk on the pretext of negotiating the terms of Władysław’s accession. However, upon their arrival, Sigismund informed the boyars that he intended to rule Russia in his own right. When the Russians refused, they were all taken prisoner and escorted to Poland. Polish troops continued to attack Russian towns, and the council of seven eventually invited the Poles to occupy Moscow to restore order.

Minin and Pozharsky

The Polish occupation of Moscow was naturally unpopular with most Russians, and Patriarch Hermogenes was arrested for denouncing the treason of the seven boyars. Most of False Dmitry II’s supporters were also opposed to Polish intervention, and the pretender’s murder by a member of his entourage in December 1610 encouraged a united front against the Poles.

Patriarch Hermogenes was still able to write secret letters encouraging the townsfolk of Nizhny Novgorod to rise up, while the nobleman Prokopy Lyapunov organized a militia against the Poles in early 1611. After the militia attacked Moscow in April 1611, the Poles were restricted to the city core, while the suburbs were burned to the ground.

The fall of the Shuisky regime and the Polish occupation of Moscow encouraged Swedish troops to secure the submission of Novgorod in June 1611. Even King James I of England considered sending troops to north Russia to secure the trading routes through Archangelsk.

The unity of the Russian militia received a bitter blow when Lyapunov was murdered by Cossacks. The Cossack leader Ivan Zarutsky assumed effective command and championed the cause of the young Ivan Dmitrievich, the posthumous son of False Dmitry II and Marina Mniszech. These efforts were opposed by the Nizhny Novgorod militia led by the butcher Kuzma Minin, who joined forces with the minor aristocrat Dmitry Pozharsky, an opponent of Zarutsky.

Financed by the townsfolk in the Volga region, who had continued to conduct profitable trade throughout the Time of Troubles, Minin and Pozharsky organized the Second National Militia to challenge not only the Poles but Zarutsky, who had recently eliminated a third False Dmitry who emerged in northwestern Russia. From his base at Yaroslavl, Pozharsky attracted many Cossacks from Zarutsky’s ranks.

A New Dynasty

During the summer of 1612, the Second Militia’s prospects improved as the Poles and Zarutsky clashed repeatedly to the west of Moscow, with both sides sustaining heavy losses. In July, Zarutsky was abandoned by his ally, Dmitry Trubetskoy, who joined forces with Pozharsky. However, Trubetskoy was conscious of being a higher-ranking aristocrat and resented being under Pozharsky’s authority.

At the beginning of September, when the Polish commander Jan Karol Chodkiewicz led a relief force to attack Pozharsky’s army besieging Moscow, Trubetskoy remained on the sidelines. However, most of his Cossacks joined the battle and helped Pozharsky achieve victory.

Trubetskoy and Pozharsky soon came to an agreement in which Trubetskoy was appointed nominal commander-in-chief of the militia even though Pozharsky and Minin remained in charge. In early November, the national militia successfully liberated Moscow and forced the Polish garrison to evacuate the city. An interim government nominally led by Trubetskoy was installed while the Assembly of the Land was summoned to elect a new tsar.

The delegates were initially deadlocked, and Trubetskoy’s own candidacy was opposed by Pozharsky and the boyars. The Romanov family, who had supported the first two false Dmitrys before joining the seven boyars, proposed the 16-year-old Mikhail Romanov, son of the imprisoned Patriarch Filaret. While Trubetskoy and Pozharsky opposed the Romanov candidacy, a body of Trubetskoy’s cossack delegates declared in his favor, and Mikhail was elected tsar on February 7, 1613.

While rival boyar families were not enthusiastic about Mikhail, they believed that they could control him via the boyar council. While Mikhail’s position on the throne was initially precarious, Romanov propagandists moved to cover up the family’s association with the pretenders and the Poles, and the tsar’s agents quickly silenced anti-Romanov voices.

During the early years of his reign, Mikhail summoned the Assembly regularly to coordinate reconstruction efforts, but following Filaret’s return from captivity in 1619, the tsar’s father became the effective ruler of Russia until his death in 1633. The Romanov dynasty continued to rule Russia for three centuries until the 1917 Revolution.

Legacy

The Time of Troubles was an incredibly traumatic period of Russian history that has reverberated through the centuries. During the 19th century, Boris Godunov became one of the most famous tragic figures in Russian drama, firstly with Alexander Pushkin’s 1825 play Boris Godunov, which in turn inspired Modest Mussorgsky’s 1872 opera Boris Godunov.

When Napoleon invaded Russia in 1812, Tsar Alexander I made reference to Minin and Pozharsky as he rallied the Russian people to resist the invader. In 1818, a few years after Russia’s victory over Napoleon, a statue of Minin and Pozharsky was unveiled in Red Square, celebrating the militia leaders who liberated Moscow in the 17th century.

In 1815, the Italian court composer Catterino Cavos wrote a two-act opera, Ivan Susanin, based on the legendary tale of an old man who is supposed to have given his life to save Mikhail Romanov from Polish soldiers. Mikhail Glinka’s 1836 opera A Life for the Tsar on the same subject, renamed Ivan Susanin during the Soviet period, is considered Russia’s first national opera.

When Russia experienced a similar period of political turbulence and economic crisis at the beginning of the 20th century with the First World War, the Revolutions of 1917, and the Russian Civil War, opponents of the Bolshevik regime labeled the period as the krasnaya smuta or “Red troubles.”

In contemporary Russia, the Time of Troubles is used to justify the need for a strong ruler who can prevent anarchy and disorder. In 2005, Vladimir Putin’s government instituted a national holiday known as the Day of National Unity on November 4, marking the anniversary of the liberation of Moscow from Polish occupation in 1612.

Autogolpes, or self-coups, occur when a leader who came to power legitimately overthrows themselves as president in favor of an illegitimate but all-powerful leadership position unburdened by his country’s legislature or judiciary. While the best-known autogolpe in the Latin American region occurred in Peru in 1992, successful and attempted self-coups have plagued the region since independence. Is Latin America especially susceptible to autogolpes, and if so, why?

Latin America: Birthplace of the Autogolpe?

While various forms of government overthrow have abounded around the globe, the autogolpe, the name itself born in the region, seems to be especially prevalent in Latin America. The key to this phenomenon may lie in how independent governance evolved in the wake of colonization and the rise of caudillismo.

In the power vacuum left behind after Spain’s withdrawal from the continent, former military leaders often took charge, having gained influential wealth and power from the lands they were granted in reward for their service. In this period of instability, people looked to strong rulers who could protect them. These caudillos, steeped in military traditions of unquestioned authority and strict adherence to orders, led the only way they knew how: with an iron fist. Caudillos might pursue policies that were progressive or conservative, but their governance style was authoritarian.

While caudillismo ultimately fell out of favor with the global push toward participatory democracy, it had left its mark: a practice, both among politicians and the populace, of obedience to a single, strong-willed leader. This tradition was necessarily at odds with the multi-pronged structure of democratic governance, as well as the development of institutions to hold the government accountable. As a result, democracy was slow to take hold in Latin America, undermined by military coups, authoritarian power grabs, and outright dictatorship throughout the late 19th and 20th centuries.

It is perhaps no surprise, then, that when democracy did get a foothold, elected leaders struggled to function under a system designed to impede unilateral rule. While they believed in democracy enough to get themselves elected, such a belief often did not extend to their actual time in office. From here, then, the autogolpe is born.

Self-Coups Without a Name: Early Autogolpes

The term “autogolpe” did not enter the political discourse until, arguably, the late 20th century, and the majority of government overthrows in Latin America prior to that were orchestrated by the military, sometimes with the help of the CIA. Still, there are several historical events for which the term could be applied in retrospect. Mexico’s famous Santa Anna, for example, pursued a number of autogolpe-like tactics during his numerous presidencies, including the dissolution of congress in 1834 and repeal of the constitution in 1835. However, given that representative governments had arguably not been fully consolidated in these countries, these power grabs were often seen as missteps along the path to fully implementing democracy, rather than coups.

One successful autogolpe took place in Brazil in 1937, when the democratically elected  Getúlio Vargas moved to install himself as a dictator. Though his rule, begun in 1930, had already been marked by authoritarian moves like suspending civil rights and declaring successive “states of emergency” that gave the government outsized policing powers, it finally came to a head when he “convinced” congress to sign a new constitution. With that done, the upcoming presidential elections were cancelled, opposition candidates arrested, political parties banned, and the media censored. For the next eight years, the country was largely ruled by decree until the military deposed Vargas in 1945.

Uruguay also faced not one but two events that could be termed self-coups, the first in 1933. Gabriel Terra had been elected in 1931 and faced a spiraling economic situation. He proposed reforming the constitution and dissolving the agency that set economic and social policies. Deciding that these reforms weren’t coming to fruition quickly enough, Terra dissolved the general assembly and began ruling by decree, censoring the press and silencing the opposition. Although a new constitution was ultimately adopted and a constituent assembly elected, Terra won an illegal second term and continued in power until 1938.

Again in 1973, the democratically elected candidate, Juan María Bordaberry, already employing a variety of authoritarian tactics, including the suspension of civil liberties and imprisonment of opposition candidates, moved to rule as a dictator. After just one year in office, Bordaberry dissolved congress and suspended the constitution. Awarding extraordinary powers to the country’s police and military, he ruled by decree, advised only by his security council, until he was forced to resign.

Despite these earlier examples, it was ultimately the dramatic government overthrow orchestrated by Peru’s president Alberto Fujimori in 1992 that brought widespread recognition to the term autogolpe.

Fujimorazo: The Quintessential Self-Coup

The quintessential self-coup, the one that cemented the word autogolpe in the lexicon of history, was Fujimori’s overthrow of his own legitimate government in Peru. Elected two years earlier in a country plagued by terrorist attacks from the Sendero Luminoso (Shining Path) guerrilla movement, Fujimori struggled to move his agenda through the country’s legislature, where his party was in the minority. In particular, opposition parties resisted the adoption of economic austerity measures being pushed by financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank.

On April 5, 1992, Fujimori suspended the country’s constitution, dissolved the legislature, dismissed senior judges, and placed prominent opposition officials under house arrest. Former president Alan Garcia barely escaped arrest and sought asylum in Colombia. Fujimori quickly adopted Decree Law 25418, giving himself all legislative powers and overriding the country’s constitution.

Often overlooked in recounting the autogolpe, the country’s military had, years earlier, drawn up plans for a “traditional” military coup, the so-called Plan Verde, which Fujimori adopted to launch his self-coup. It then comes as no surprise that all branches of the military promptly signed a communiqué supporting Fujimori’s new Government of Emergency and National Reconstruction—it was their own plan all along. The military took control of the nation’s media outlets and occupied government buildings, tear-gassing a group of politicians attempting to hold a session after Fujimori’s announcement disbanding the legislature.

International response to the self-coup was underwhelming. Although the general opinion was against Fujimori’s illegal moves, Peru was not suspended from the Organization of American States for violating the Inter-American Democratic Charter. Within two weeks, the US formally recognized Fujimori as Peru’s legitimate president. Domestically, Peru’s politicians and journalists rejected the autogolpe, but the Peruvian people, though perhaps limited in their understanding of events by media blackout, largely supported Fujimori. In fact, they would go on to re-elect him in 1995 in what were broadly considered free and fair elections. The Fujimorazo was a success.

Guatemala 1993: The Failed Copycat Autogolpe

In 1993, the beleaguered president of Guatemala, Jorge Serrano Elías, who had apparently watched Fujimori’s autogolpe with great interest, attempted a similar power grab. Just two years earlier, Serrano’s accession to the presidency had marked the first peaceful and democratic transfer of power from an incumbent to the opposition in 40 years, a promising start. Yet, with the country amid a prolonged civil war and his party holding just 18 seats in the legislature, he was primed for a difficult term.

During his first two years, the country saw modest economic growth, and Serrano was able to reestablish civilian control over the military. Yet, he failed to sufficiently address the issue of human rights abuses by the military and right-wing paramilitaries and made little progress in securing peace with the leftist rebels, both key campaign promises.

Despite his party’s success in the 1993 mayoral elections, Serrano remained relatively weak politically, so his next step has long puzzled political scholars. On May 25, 1993, Serrano suspended the country’s constitution and closed congress, as well as the Supreme Court and the Constitutional Court. Like Fujimori, Serrano proclaimed himself a champion of democracy, implementing these measures in order to root out the corruption in the very institutions of governance that were preventing democracy from thriving.

Unlike Fujimori, Serrano gravely overestimated his popularity and support, particularly with the military, which had been so key in Fujimori’s takeover. Widespread opposition to his maneuvers quickly coalesced among civil society, including key players like the press and the Catholic Church, international organizations condemned his takeover, and foreign governments imposed sanctions. By June 1, Serrano had resigned and fled the country. Democracy, though temporarily thrown into chaos, prevailed.

Autogolpes in the 21st Century

Despite the widespread consolidation of democracy throughout the Western Hemisphere, autogolpes have continued into the modern era, though they have evolved over time. Rather than outright disbanding the co-institutions of government, today’s self-coup often involves illegally co-opting the legislature and judiciary, undermining and ultimately rendering impotent the other branches of government, or simply ignoring them and daring anyone to stop them. There have been quite a number over the last two decades, including another attempted self-coup in Peru in 2022.

With Hugo Chavez’s death in 2013, Nicolas Maduro, then-vice president, took over Venezuela’s presidency. Venezuela was arguably already in dictatorship territory prior to Chavez’s passing, but the vestiges of democracy remained. Even those quickly fell apart. After the opposition won control of the National Assembly in 2015, Maduro quickly moved to fill the country’s Supreme Court with allies during “lame duck” assembly sessions and oversaw the removal of opposition candidates from the new legislature due to supposed electoral irregularities, ending the opposition’s supermajority.

The packed court, cancelling a recall referendum, awarded Maduro more and more authority, until he ultimately ordered it to take over the assembly’s legislative powers in 2017. After elections, widely regarded both at home and abroad as rigged, produced a Constituent Assembly favorable to Maduro, he declared the 2015 assembly dissolved. He remains in power today.

El Salvador’s Nayib Bukele has often referred to himself as the “world’s coolest dictator,” and the dictator part, at least, is not hyperbole. Elected in 2019, his party initially didn’t have enough legislative representation to push his agenda. His response, on one occasion, was to send soldiers into the legislative assembly to intimidate it into approving a loan request. After his party won the majority of seats in 2021, Bukele moved swiftly to ensure his ongoing authority. The five judges on the country’s Constitutional Court were removed, along with the attorney general, and new, Bukele-friendly judges took over. By 2022, Bukele had invoked the country’s infamous “state of exception,” suspending civil liberties like due process and jailing tens of thousands of “gang members” in order to bring order to a country plagued by violence. Despite a constitutional ban on consecutive terms, Bukele was inaugurated for a second time in 2024.

One unifying element of 21st-century autogolpes is that they are commonly referred to as “constitutional crises” until their success or failure is determined. These two examples of modern self-coups were without a doubt successes, but a number of constitutional crises elsewhere present additional threats to the supremacy of democracy over autocracy in the hemisphere.