A junta often comes to power as a result of acoup d'état.[1] The junta may either formally take power as the nation's governing body, with the power torule by decree, or may wield power by exercising binding (but informal) control over a nominally civilian government.[3] These two forms of junta rule are sometimes calledopen rule anddisguised rule.[4] Disguised rule may take the form of eithercivilianization orindirect rule.[4] Civilianization occurs when a junta publicly ends its obviously military features but continues its dominance.[4] For example, the junta may terminate themartial law, forgo military uniforms in favor of civilian attire, "colonize" government with former military officers, and make use ofpolitical parties or mass organizations.[5] "Indirect rule" involves the junta's exertion of concealed, behind-the-scenes control over a civilianpuppet.[4] Indirect rule by the military can include either broad control over the government or control over a narrower set of policy areas, such as military ornational security matters.[4]
Throughout the 20th century, military juntas were frequently seen inLatin America, typically in the form of an "institutionalized, highly corporate/professional junta" headed by the commanding officers of the differentmilitary branches (army,navy, andair force), and sometimes joined by the head of the nationalpolice or other key bodies.[3] Political scientistSamuel Finer, writing in 1988, noted that juntas in Latin America tended to be smaller than juntas elsewhere; the median junta had 11 members, while Latin American juntas typically had three or four.[3] "Corporate" military coups have been distinguished from "factional" military coups. The former are carried out by the armed forces as an institution, led by senior commanders at the top of the military hierarchy, while the latter are carried out by a segment of the armed forces and are often led by mid-ranking officers.[3][6]
A 2014 study published in theAnnual Review of Political Science journal found that military regimes behaved differently from both civilian dictatorships and autocratic military strongmen. A military regime is ruled by a group of high-ranking officers, whereas a military strongman is ruled by a single dictator.[7] The study found that (1) "strongmen and military regimes are more likely to commithuman rights abuses and become embroiled in civil wars than are civilian dictatorships"; (2) "military strongmen start more international wars than either military regimes or civilian dictators, perhaps because they have more reason to fear postouster exile, prison, or assassination" and (3) military regimes and civilian dictatorships are more likely to end indemocratization, in contrast to the rule of military strongmen, which more often ends by insurgency, popular uprising, or invasion.[7]
^abJunta,Encyclopædia Britannica (last updated 1998).
^Lai, Brian; Slater, Dan (2006). "Institutions of the Offensive: Domestic Sources of Dispute Initiation in Authoritarian Regimes, 1950-1992".American Journal of Political Science.50 (1):113–126.doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2006.00173.x.JSTOR3694260.
^abcdPaul Brooker,Non-Democratic Regimes (Palgrave Macmillan: 2d ed. 2009), pp. 148-150.
^abcdePaul Brooker,Comparative Politics (ed. Daniele Caramani: Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 101-102.
^David Kuehn, "Democratic Control of the Military" inHandbook of the Sociology of the Military (eds. Giuseppe Caforio & Marina Nuciari: Springer, 2nd ed.), p. 164.