Military junta

A military junta (/ˈhʊntə, ˈdʒʌn-/) is a government led by a committee of military leaders. The term junta means "meeting" or "committee" and originated in the national and local junta organized by the Spanish resistance to Napoleon's invasion of Spain in 1808.[1] The term is now used to refer to an authoritarian form of government characterized by oligarchic military dictatorship, as distinguished from other categories of authoritarian rule, specifically strongman (autocratic military dictatorships); machine (oligarchic party dictatorships); and bossism (autocratic party dictatorships).[2]

Part of the Politics series
Basic forms of government
Power source
Democracy (rule by many) Demarchy Direct Liberal Representative Social Socialist Others Oligarchy (rule by few) Anocracy Aristocracy Ergatocracy Gerontocracy Kleptocracy Kritarchy Noocracy Particracy Plutocracy Stratocracy Technocracy Autocracy (rule by one) Despotism Dictatorship Military dictatorship Tyranny Anarchism (rule by none) Anarchy Free association Stateless
Power ideology
Monarchy vs. republic (socio-political ideologies) Absolute Constitutional Directorial Legalist Parliamentary Presidential Semi-presidential Socialist Authoritarian vs. libertarian (socio-economic ideologies) Anarchism Colonialism Communism Despotism Distributism Feudalism Socialism Totalitarianism Tribalism Global vs. local (geo-cultural ideologies) Commune Civilization state City-state Intergovernmental organisation National government World government Nationalism Internationalism Globalism
Power structure
Unitary Unitary state Empire Principality Client state Associated state Dependent territory Dominion Protectorate Puppet state Puppet monarch Satellite state Self-governing colony Tributary state Vassal state Federalism Confederation Devolution Federation Superstate Supranational union International relations Small power Regional power Middle power Great power Superpower
Politics portal

A junta often comes to power as a result of a coup d'état.[1] The junta may either formally take power as the nation's governing body, with the power to rule by decree, or may exercise power by exercising binding (but informal) control over a nominally civilian government.[3] These two forms of junta rule are sometimes called open rule and disguised rule.[4] Disguised rule may take the form of either civilianization or indirect rule.[4] Civilianization occurs when a junta publicly ends its obviously military features, but continues its dominance.[4] For example, the junta may terminate martial law, forgo military uniforms in favor of civilian attire, "colonize" government with former military officers, and make use of political parties or mass organizations.[5] "Indirect rule" involves the junta's exertion of concealed, behind-the-scenes control over a civilian puppet.[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 or national security matters.[4]

Since the mid 1920s, military juntas have been frequently seen in Latin America, typically in the form of an "institutionalized, highly corporate/professional junta" headed by the commanding officers of the different military branches (army, navy, and air force), and sometimes joined by the head of the national police or other key bodies.[3] Political scientist Samuel 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 the Annual Review of Political Science journal found that military regimes behaved differently from both civilian dictatorships and autocratic military strongmen.[7] The study found that (1) "strongmen and military regimes are more likely to commit human 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 in democratization, in contrast to the rule of military strongmen, which more often ends by insurgency, popular uprising, or invasions.[7]