Argument: The response must be democratic

It is never appropriate to overthrow a democratically elected government which the people have chosen. The government is legitimised by being the choice of the people, a coup is by definition not legitimate in such a way. The response to a government that has lost the trust of the electorate, unable to prevent violence, or is corrupt, is to hold an election. In the worst case and an elected government is using its power as a government to manipulate any election then the responsibility is with the judiciary to convict a government which is responsible for such a

Candidate 1: "A neutral party

Democracies can turn into an intractable conflict between two political parties with neither side ruling in their national interest but simply using power in an attempt to defeat the other side. Bangladesh is a good example of this as there are two main parties; the Awami League and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party. Neither are willing to talk to the other, the competition has at times been violent and attempts to create neutral caretaker governments are scotched by one side or the other as occurred at the start of 2014. 1 The 2007 coup resulted in the arrests of the leaders of both parties along with a major anti corruption drive. 2 Unfortunately this did not prevent Bangladesh quickly falling into the same two party system with the same parties and leaders once civilian rule was restored.

1 Budhwar, Kailash 'Bangladesh elections: The 'battling begums'', Al Jazeera, 4 January 2014, http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2014/01/bangladesh-elections-battling-begums-20141492730547677.html

2 Voice of America, 'Former Bangladesh Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Arrested', voanews.com, 27 October 2009, http://www.voanews.com/content/a-13-2007-07-16-voa21-66720297/560572.html"
Candidate 2: "Elections do not always return a government that has true popular support; the system may be gerrymandered so it is much easier for one party to win seats. Additionally in many democracies there is a large number of people who don't vote so even a party that is elected may not have a true mandate. If the abstaining majority want a different government should the military not respect their democratic wish?"
Candidate 3: "Restoring democracy

A coup that is against an elected government that is however becoming increasingly anti democratic is justified. When an elected government is increasingly concentrating power in its own hands, and particularly if elections are postponed then it is necessary for the military to step in to ensure democracy continues to function. From 1991-2006 31 of 43 coups resulted in an election within five years so far from damaging democracy were often restoring it. 1

1 Marinov, Nikolay, and Goemans, Hein, 'Coups and Democracy', British Journal of Political Science, 2013, http://www.nikolaymarinov.com/wp-content/files/GoemansMarinovCoup.pdf , p.2"
Candidate 4: "Necessary to restore peace to the country

The clearest, and most common, reason for the military stepping in is to restore peace to the country. When the stakes are so high, power through control of government, the ability to distribute resources, it is something well worth fighting for. The result can be that democracies become unstable and violent with election campaigns particular flashpoints. The runup to the Thai elections in 2014 shortly before the coup left 10 dead and 600 injured 1 with no sign of stability returning after the flawed elections General Prayuth Chan-ocha the head of the army said the coup was necessary “in order for the country to return to normality quickly, and for society to love and be at peace again.” 2 When there violence creating violence it is the military's role to step in the prevent such instability.

1 Wilkinson, Laura, 'Thailand elections: Violent clashes in Bangkok over disputed poll', The Independent, 2 February 2014, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/thailand-elections-violent-clashes-in-bangkok-over-disputed-poll-9101656.html

2 Hodal, Kate, 'Coup needed for Thailand 'to love and be at peace again' – army chief', The Guardian, 23 May 2014, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/22/military-coup-thailand-peace-general-prayuth-chan-ocha"
Candidate 5: "Military intervention is most likely to happen only when trust in democracy has already been damaged. In Thailand democracy was already distrusted due to corruption and vote buying, the military acted because of that distrust. When intervention is to clean up corruption and create greater separation of powers the coup may actually improve trust in democracy."
Candidate 6: "Whether or not the head of the army is the right man to run the country is immaterial as he will be passing on to another administration quickly. This will either be a temporary civilian administration in which top technocrats are brought in or it will be as a result of new elections. If a military man is still in power after an election, as with Sisi in Egypt, then they have come through the same test as a politician would have done."
Candidate 7: "A technocratic government is needed to prevent corruption

Democracy does not mean that a country is not corrupt, or that the political leadership is not corrupt. There are many countries where democratic elections stand side by side with a large amount of corruption; Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq countries that have recently had elections following western intervention are ranked 175, 172, and 171 out of 177 on the corruption perceptions index. Even countries with long established democracies can be perceived as being corrupt, India is 94th. 1 If the political class is incapable of reforming itself it may be necessary for another actor to do it for them.

There have been several coups in which the military has taken power in order to reform the political system before handing over to a civilian government at elections; Turkey in 1960, Portugal in 1974, and the relatively recent coup in Bangladesh in 2007. 2

1 Transparency International, 'Corruptions Perceptions Index 2013', http://cpi.transparency.org/cpi2013/results/

2 Marinov, Nikolay, and Goemans, Hein, 'Coups and Democracy', British Journal of Political Science, 2013, http://www.nikolaymarinov.com/wp-content/files/GoemansMarinovCoup.pdf , p.5"

Elections do not always return a government that has true popular support; the system may be gerrymandered so it is much easier for one party to win seats. Additionally in many democracies there is a large number of people who don't vote so even a party that is elected may not have a true mandate. If the abstaining majority want a different government should the military not respect their democratic wish?
