-Mural of “The Liberator” Simon Bolivar
Do military-fronted insurgencies achieve their goals? Pose that question in most of Africa and you will get a mixed response. For most people on the continent, the answer will be “yes,” while other people in the world will provide varied responses. More often than not, “no” will come from more Westernized countries, and “yes” from other regions of the world.
The question sprang from the recent Wagner Rebellion. Normally, I do not follow Russian/Ukrainian geopolitics, so I was surprised when Yevgeny Prigozhin, former leader of the Wagner Group, led a small contingent of soldiers into the Russian city of Rostov-on-Don on June 23, 2023. Although the insurrection lasted only 48 hours, the repercussions added another facet to the ongoing Ukrainian/Russian War.
Now in August, with updates and melodramas still unfolding as if the war is a telenovela, I kept thinking of similar instances when military factions either overthrew or threatened an elected leader. Kleptocratic nations typically move between leaders who can hold on to their reign with wealth and promises to politicos and soldiers who help “keep the peace.”
Herein, I focus on a specific scenario: military officers who felt slighted and leaders who were caught unaware and these coups’ long-lasting effects on their countries.
Federation of the Andes: Various Latin American Nations (1821–1828)
By June 24, 1821, the Spanish American War for Independence ended, giving the victorious countries autonomy from the Spanish Bourbon Crown via the Constitution of Cadiz (1812), which granted a full membership to all Spanish possessions in the New World. As this led to less political representation in affairs that directly concerned these populations, disenfranchisement set in. Similar to the United States, taxes and open markets ignited the fires of revolution. Widening the divide was a class system established to always keep those of pure Spanish blood and complexion in a higher class with the mixed-race creoles and mestizos.
Given the title of “Libertador” for his role in establishing independence for Latin America, Simon Bolivar was of the creole elite. He was educated in Europe, married the daughter of a Spanish nobleman, and was inspired by the literary thinkers who formed the United States government and policy. However, Bolivar’s failed political efforts forced him to take a military role.
A Nation of Nations
Throughout the battle for independence, Bolivar was exiled, fought and won “unwinnable” battles (Attack on New Granada in 1819 and Battle of Boyaca in 1819), and helped establish a new government while convincing others that independence was worth fighting for.
After creating a government for Gran Colombia (Colombia, Panama, Venezuela, and Quito [Ecuador]), he became president of Gran Colombia and dictator of Lower Peru.
During these events, Bolivar gathered like-minded revolutionaries to fight for independence by reclaiming territories acquired by the Spanish military. After gaining independence, the much more difficult task of nation building began.
Within these new nations, progress led to divisions. Greater Grenada (Greater Colombia) was fracturing internally and financially. Old laws, such as race-based taxes, were abolished, but divides remained between Ingenious and other races. Peru had regions controlled by the Spanish military and therefore did not align with the new cause. Leaders were mysteriously poisoned, which did not bother too many Peruvians. Venezuela and Colombia were heading to a face-off. Chile was dealing with internal battles and a weak government. Argentina was almost at war with Brazil over what became Uruguay. Mexico needed aid after the end of Emperor Agustin de Iturbide’s reign and his execution. (1783 – 1824)
Bolivar was stretched thin attempting to hold the continent together. A constitutional convention meant to bring everyone together under one government failed:
“Bolivar’s constitution was a testament to how the social realities of the continent had altered his liberating vision; it was a curious combination of deeply held republican principle and authoritarian rule. He had long feared the lawlessness that a hastily conceived democracy might bring. To hand power too quickly to illiterate masses was to snuff out what little order there was” (Bolivar, Maria Arana).
Taking the United States as inspiration, executive, legislative, and judicial branches were created along with an electoral college. Freedoms of speech, press, work, passage, and “moral” education were also offered to educate the populace on about these new freedoms.
The new constitution required the president to serve for life. This supreme rule allowed the president to select a vice president and presidential successor:
“We shall avoid elections, which always result in that great scourge of republics, anarchy…the most imminent and terrible peril of popular government” (Bolivar, Maria Arana).
This was a big change from his declaration a few years earlier:
“Regular elections are essential to popular government, for nothing is more perilous than to permit one citizen to retain power for an extended period” (Bolivar, Maria Arana).
For his part, Bolivar never wanted to become the president for life because he preferred a grander role with autonomy over the continent.
Divided We Fall
Despite 300 years of efforts by Spain to create divisions between peoples and classes, Bolivar looked at the Spanish-speaking nations as a grand fraternity bound by common laws and protected by a military (the Federation of the Andes). He focused on nations that he had liberated (from Panama to Potosi) and on diverse populations.
On June 22, 1826, the next step in creating the Federation of the Andes took place in Panama. Representatives came from Peru, Greater Colombia (Venezuela, Panama, Ecuador, and New Granada) and Mexico, and four came from the Federal Republic of Central America. Argentina and Chile declined their invitations. The representative from newly minted Bolivia arrived late. Although they could not join the federation, Brazil (whose racial composition, culture, and languages were too different) and the United States (a rising world power) sent representatives. Haiti was not allowed to send a representative because its population was too black and culturally different. The event was a failure.
By July 1826, a Peruvian plot was uncovered to assassinate Bolivar and to establish a Peruvian government. Bolivar made General Santa Cruz the president, a decision he would regret, and exited the country. He also made his most trusted allies the presidents of other nations: Lieutenant Antonio Jose de Sucre in Bolivia, Paez in Venezuela and Santander in Colombia.
Now his goal was to unite whichever countries adopted his constitution. As internal divisions grew within other nations (Greater Colombia and Venezuela), Bolivar wrote to Santander, “A dictatorship would solve everything….” Santander was furious. His opinion was that a dictatorship was unnecessary in a republic whose laws, if obeyed, did the work of governing. He also did not want Bolivar’s constitution supplementing the current constitution (1815).
Unknown to Bolivar, his actions were creating dissent among his military leaders. He felt strongly that the union’s members should support each other. What he did not see, however, was that separate states were tired of paying for the management of other states. Santander was implicated for an insurrection in Lima to move away from Colombia’s purse strings. General Santa Cruz moved to relinquish power, and the Peruvian congress approved.
Conspiracy Theory
Military fractions moved out of Lima and invaded Guayaquil, replacing its leadership with a Peruvian general. Venezuela was dealing with an abysmal economy and a leader (Paez) who was often summoned to deal with matters in other nations. A coup was simmering.
People loyal to Santander began the discuss the need to replace the old guard. “Off with the Tyrant’s head!” became the rallying cry for Florentino Gonzalez, editor of a local newspaper; Pedro Carujo, a young artillery officer; Agustin Horment, a French liberal and a Spanish spy; Luis Vargas Tejada, who was Santander’s secretary; Colonel Ramon Guerra, chief officer of the city’s garrisons; and Francisco de Paula Santander whose role has been contested.
Their plan was to kill Bolivar. The first attempt was at a masked ball at the Coliseum Theater on August 10 1828. The second was on September 21. Both failed but gained followers who helped gather assassins and people within the military. Santander pulled back because of his impending ambassadorship to the United States.
The new date was set in October and then moved to September 25. With many individuals within the military involved in the plot, a plan was devised to storm the Presidential Palace in Bogota and kill Bolivar and his most loyal generals—Urdaneta and Castillo.
At 7:00 p.m., the call to attack went out to 150 collaborators. But the majority did not respond. The others arrived, formed a unit of assassins under Vargas Tejada, and attacked.
The yapping dogs woke up Manuela Saez, Bolivar’s mistress and confident. She woke him up and helped him dress and escape through a window, while the assassins pounded on the door and shouted: “Long live liberty!” and “Death to the tyrant!”
In the morning, loyal officers with descriptions from Manuela gathered the suspects for an investigation. Forty-nine men were identified as principal actors, eight were acquitted, and 14 were condemned to death. Guerra, Horment, and Padilla, who all faced the firing squad. Carujo and Gonzales escaped. Santander was dragged to prison where Bolivar changed his death sentence to banishment.
The attack left Bolivar weak and full of self-doubt. His goal of uniting Latin America actually pushed these countries farther apart.
-Reworked Flag for Nationalist Lithuania
The Legend of the Iron Wolf—Lithuania (1926–1930)
Through the Valley of Sventaragis, the royal hunters and hounds tracked their prey until the chase ended with a flurry of arrows as The Grand Duke Gediminas of Lithuania (1275–1341) won the greatest trophy: a mighty bison.
Tired and victorious, he set up his camp at the intersection of the Neris and Vilnia rivers. During the night, he dreamed of an iron wolf howling on top of a mountain as if there was more than one wolf.
Confused, he asked his courtiers to explain his dream, but no one provide an answer. Desperate to find the meaning of his vision, he sent for High Priest Kriviu Krivaitis at the nearby shrine to Perkunas, the Lithuanian god of thunder.
The priest said, “Sire, the iron wolf signifies a large and mighty city that will stand as strong as iron and its walls will protect the land from its enemies. The howling means a clamor will arise from it reaching far beyond the country’s borders and proclaiming through long centuries the glory of Lithuania.”
Pleased with the interpretation, Gediminas returned to Kernave. He ordered his artisans to construct a castle on top the mountain where he saw the iron wolf. This was the beginning of the town of Vilnius.
Baltic Fascism
In the mid-1920s, Lithuania entered a time of peace after the War of Independence (1918–1920). At this time, the third Seimas (legislative branch) emerged as the military slowly backed away.
Despite this peace, Lithuania was a politically divided country, and many citizens thought the government was ignoring leftist organizations’ criminal behavior. Rumors that Interior Minister Vladas Pozela was a communist stirred concern. Individuals from the main Christian Democratic Party, who had been in their positions for some time, were let go. The government under Prime Minister Mykolas Sleževičius was heading toward self-destruction influenced by the Bolsheviks.
By November 21, 1926, the Nationalist Association with help from the Lithuanian Catholic Federation and Neo-Lithuania, a right-wing group, marched to the War Museum to honor the Unknown Solider, listen to anti-government speeches, and sing the national anthem. Over 2,000 people were in attendance. Mounted officers attacked some of the demonstrators with truncheons, but they were later condemned by The University of Kaunas Senate, which was later backed by the Christian Democratic, Nationalists, and Farmers political parties. This disorder contributed to feelings of an impending regime change.
Preparing for a Coup
In early 1926, Kazys Grinius asked Professor Augustinas Voldemaras (first prime minister of Lithuania and a Nationalist) if the military would obey the Nationalists. Voldemaras’ response was reported to be “Yes, the Army is ours.” By June 1926, Grinius had become the third president of Lithuania (June 1926–December 1926). Going into office, he believed that the military would never initiate a coup—but he quickly learned how wrong he was.
The Christian Democrats were ardently against the new military. They kept recruiting soldiers who were dismissed from duty or felt disenfranchised. A sentiment grew that the Grinius-Slezevicius administration needed to be removed.
On September 20, 1926, a small committee headed by Aviation Captain Antanas Maciuika, along with representatives from the Christian Democrats and Nationalists, met to discuss the coup. The plan was to dismantle the government and replace the president with former President Antanas Smetona. In response to this plan, many seasoned officers and politicians opted to stay uninvolved, thinking it was naïve and a poor decision. Eventually, the coup became an open secret.
The Big Day
December 17, 1926, was the 60th birthday of President Grinius. As the country prepared for celebrations, the government was aware that a coup was being organized by the Nationalists and Christian Democrats. A group called Petruitis, a Christian Democratic sympathizer, led the opening attack.
The coup was swift and tactical. By that evening, the president was under house arrest. Members of the Seimas were also under arrest, and the cabinet members tendered their resignations. The government was overthrown, and the military headquarters were in chaos.
As Antanas Smetona was reinstated as president, soldiers began to ask, “What good have we done?” They realized that they had overthrown a democratically elected government.
To prevent any opposition, Iron Wolf was created in 1927 by the Nationalists. Led by then Prime Minister and Chief Augustinas Voldemaras, the Iron Wolf members spied on opponents, used violence and propaganda, and quickly grew to 4,000 members.
To the public, they were known as the Iron Wolf Sports Union, but in secret they were a military organization funded by the Ministry of the Interior. Their motto was “Nation’s Honor and State’s Prosperity.”
-Bangladesh Rifles 2009
Mutiny of the Bangladesh Rifles—Bangladesh (February 25–26, 2009)
Bangladesh Rifles (BDR) Week is a yearly tradition from February 22 to 27 in the para-military zone/BDR headquarters of Peelkhana within the capital of Dhaka. The event is a mix of annual meetings, updates, re-education, sharing of information, participatory events, and everything relevant to improving the BDR. Upwards of 3,000 officers were scheduled to attend in 2009, but the actual number was 10,000.
On February 25, 2009, at 8:30 a.m., the central armory was looted, and the senior officer, Major Md. Riazul Karim, was attacked, gagged, and placed on the floor.
By 9:26 a.m., two soldiers had entered the stage behind the Director General of Bangladesh Rifles, Shaquil Ahmed. One soldier escaped through a window in the main hall. The other soldier attacked the director general, causing him to fall out of his chair. As military personal rushed the stage to disarm and restrain the solider, he fired what was later identified as a blank round—the signal to revolt.
By the conclusion of the two-day massacre, 74 people were dead (57 officers, 1 retired officer, 2 wives of officers, 9 BDR members, and 3 innocents, 1 Army solider, 1 police constable, and 2 unidentified officers).
Operation Dal-Bhaat
Since forming as the Ramgarh Local Battalion in 1975, the BDR’s main purpose has been protecting the nation’s 4,427 km (2,750.81 mile) border, preventing smuggling, and assisting the Army during a war. Over time, they became known for taking bribes and kickbacks and profiting from smuggling.
By 2007, the BDR began to provide assistance to Colonel Mojibul Hoque on an ongoing affordable food/grocery program officially named Operation Dal-Bhaat. Created to provide items to low-income families, it became an opportunity to loot the 100 fair price shops throughout the country.
From late 2008 to early February 2009, officers and civilians began approaching high-ranking staff in regard to their demands. Sheikh Salim and Barrister Taposh, two Members of Parliament, were approached, but they failed to find a resolution.
Meanwhile, more aggressive plans were made in case the requests were not fulfilled. On February 16, 2009, a BDR member said: “We will not benefit by such demands; we will have to extract the demands by keeping officers hostage.” On February 21, a leaflet was circulated among officers and battalions detailing the BDR’s demands—no response.
On the evening of February 24, final plans were made for attacking during BDR week:
Director General (DG) and Directing Director General (DDG) and other officers will be taken hostage.
Two BDR soldiers will hold the DG at gunpoint.
Other officers will be taken as hostages. Shots will be fired if this process is obstructed, but no one will be killed.
Arms depots and ammunition will be collected.
Demands will be extracted from the government.
At the conclusion of the meeting, the BDR members took an oath of solidarity.
Massacre at Durbar Hall
As the bullets flew inside Durbar Hall, soldiers yelled “Run!” Some soldiers fled, breaking windows on their way out. Army officers rushed the stage as Major Aziz apprehended a solider and disarmed him. Additional gunfire came from all directions causing confusion.
Some Army soldiers surrounded and protected the DR. The first causality was an officer shot in the head. At 9:30 a.m., a military intervention was requested via a call from the BDR Director General. One soldier said, “Durbar Hall is under the control of rebel BDR soldiers. We are captives. We cannot talk any longer, so please take prompt steps. We will probably never meet again. Take care and look after my children….”
Rebel soldiers in the fields closed in on the hall and opened fire. They yelled for the Army personal trapped inside to surrender and exit with their hands up. Soldiers and Director General Shaquil Ahmed were quickly shot. Ahmed died on the spot. Soldiers met a similar fate as they were bayoneted after the firing stopped. Looting, fires, and random gunfire could be seen and heard from the neighboring community.
Soon the news was broadcast throughout the country. Government responses included an Air Force helicopter dropping leaflets with requests to hear their demands. Rebels fired at the helicopter.
Protestors arrived to support the BDR: “Victory for Bangla, victory for BDR” and “BDR and the public are brothers.” The rebels began firing thousands of rounds in the air for almost a half hour. Then, a request was made to meet with newly re-elected Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and Home Minister with a promise that they would be protected. The prime minister was consulted about a general amnesty to be printed in journals.
By nightfall, the power was cut by BDR rebels who used this time to collect and bury bodies.
List of Demands
By Day 2, not much had changed as far as negotiations. With the country and world community watching, Prime Minister Hasina made a speech to the nation as more threats and demands were being made at Durbar Hall.
The rebels demanded: “If the Army kills even one BDR member, we will shoot and blow up the entire city of Dhaka” and “We do not want to kill common people. Tell the Army to go back to their barracks or we will not surrender our arms.”
A 2:00 p.m. surrender deadline was given to the BDR rebels even as negotiations failed, leading to random gunfire aimed at Peelkhana’s main gate.
As the deadline passed, the rebels expected a siege. At 2:30 p.m., the prime minister made one final request for their surrender. Shortly thereafter, groups of BDR requested another meeting were a settlement was made.
Soon, rebels were found and put in their barracks. Those who escaped were promised amnesty when they returned. The exact BDR soldiers who planned the coup were never identified.
Was this coup a ploy to destabilize Bangladesh or an attempt to make it into a terrorist state? To date, no answer has been found.
Conclusion
Would Latin America be in a better position globally and internally if its member countries had united? Has Lithuania learned from its bout of extreme nationalism? Unfortunately, modern successors such as the Young Lithuania Party and Lithuanian National Union still pop up from time to time advocating an extreme ideology like Nazism. What about Bangladesh? A few years ago, border patrol officers were reportedly taking advantage of Rohingya refugees in Cox Bazaar.
Even as this text is being written, Niger is dealing with a military-backed coup. In Myanmar, some of the fake charges against President Aung San Suu Kui have been levied. Meanwhile, in the rainforest of Northern Myanmar, the Albino Tiger Battalion is preparing for a counter coup against the Myanmar military.
As we entered 2023, Brazil had its own brush with a military coup. Countries such as Chad, Mali, and Guinea continue to prove how ineffective they are with coups happening from 2020 to 2022.
With all of these events transpiring so often, I began to wonder how rare it has become to not anticipate any type of coup, whether backed by the military or not. In many cases, nothing is learned from military coups. What we do know, however, is that regardless of the motives, no one wins.
Fin
-Painting of the Spanish American Revolution
-Francisco José de Paula Santander y Omaña
-Grand Duke of Lithuania, Gediminas (1316 - 1346)
-Prime Minister Augustinas Voldemaras, Chief of Iron Wolf
-Third President of Lithuania, Kazys Grinius
-Officers' bodies found after Bangladesh mutiny ends - 27 Feb 09
-High court upholds death sentence of 139 soldiers in Bangladesh rifles mutiny 2018