Despite a long history of failure, regime change remains a popular idea among many policymakers. This reflects a deep-rooted belief that overthrowing dictators makes the world safer and better and is consistent with the American policy of “teaching the bad guys a lesson.” But the evidence suggests that this is wrong. In fact, pursuing regime change undermines the effectiveness of other foreign policy tools and often produces negative results that far outweigh any purported benefits.
Regime change is any effort, overt or covert, by one state to overturn another country’s leadership or political power structure. It is different from “nation building,” a more measured form of development assistance that seeks to strengthen a state’s institutions and empower its people, and from democracy promotion, a strategy that supports the growth of democratic systems through non-military means.
When states seek to overthrow other governments through various policy mechanisms, including diplomatic, economic and military tools and, if necessary, lethal force, they engage in regime change. But even in such cases, the formula for success is extremely narrow. The state pursuing the change needs to have a clear and compelling reason, such as that its leader is committing atrocities or has lost legitimacy, a substantial organized domestic opposition that wants it gone, and, ideally, a credible alternative to take over once the regime has been ousted.
This is why a campaign to overthrow Maduro’s government would likely fail, as has every other regime-change operation in the past, from invading Vietnam to the botched American invasion of Libya. The United States and its allies should instead use their normal policy tools to help the Venezuelan population overthrow Maduro’s authoritarian rule.