Patrick Moreau is a professor of literature in Montreal, editor-in-chief of the journal Argument and essayist. He notably published These words that think for us (Liber, 2017) and contributed to the collective work edited by R. Antonius and N. Baillargeon Identity, “race”, freedom of expressionwhich has just been published by PUL
What happened on January 6, 2021 on Capitol Hill was very serious, but, no offense to the commission responsible for shedding light on these events, it was not a coup attempt; or else it was a very chimerical attempt and the most ill-prepared coup in history.
Even if the rioters had seized the seat of Congress for a long time, even if they had manhandled, even lynched, Vice President Mike Pence or certain Democratic senators, since such were their proven intentions, their actions, as violent, criminal and odious had they been, could not have constituted an “attempted coup d’etat”. Why ? This is simply due to the definition of a “coup d’etat”.
Words do indeed have meaning. A “coup” occurs when, from within the state apparatus itself, people with some authority conspire to overthrow the established government and illegally seize power. These “people” generally come from the armed forces, the secret services, sometimes the police, or even from the government itself. During such a coup, the conspirators take control of the main machinery of the state, most of the time thanks to the complicity of the security forces or a part of them, and most often put arrest (or assassinate) members of the incumbent government who did not join them.
A coup can be violent, lead to the death of many people, especially if it gives rise to resistance from the population or from certain sectors of the state. For example, the coup d’etat which, on September 11, 1973, overthrew the Allende government caused the death of the president and thousands of Chileans (not counting those who were imprisoned, tortured, etc.). It can also succeed or fail (this is called an “attempt”).
In 1961, the putsch of Algiers was a failure, because the rebel generals did not manage to seize power durably and were arrested or had to flee. In December 1989, Nicolae Ceausescu, the last communist dictator in Eastern Europe, was deposed by the Romanian army and secret services (in this case, the protest demonstrations that had occurred the previous days had served only for the preparation of the real coup, carefully prepared by members of the state security services).
There was none of that in January 2021 in Washington. The Trump supporters who stormed the Capitol were not backed by the military or the National Guard or even the CIA, and once inside the building, other than ransacking offices and taking selfies, they obviously didn’t know what to do. It doesn’t seem like they had any plan. In other words, it was a riot and not an attempted coup.
Even the term “insurrection” is too strong to qualify these events, because this word implies that one takes up arms to oppose the government. However, according to the images of the capture of the Capitol which circulated, the rioters, and it is fortunate, did not seem equipped with firearms. Of course, this takes nothing away from the seriousness of the acts of violence and vandalism that were committed during this riot. If only on a symbolic level, it is very serious to attack a bastion of democracy in a democratic state in this way.
Nor does it exculpate Donald Trump, then President of the United States in office, who, through his delirious speeches about the election results, had for months undermined the confidence of his fellow citizens in their institutions, and who more or less encouraged explicitly his supporters to launch this January 6 assault. For this encouragement to violence, he most certainly deserves to be condemned. However, it is difficult to see how this riot could have allowed him to stay in power illegally.
The outrageous speeches, which were his trademark throughout his mandate, therefore do not justify his adversaries indulging today in one-upmanship by speaking of “insurrection” or “coup d’etat”. Responding to outright lies and rhetorical exaggerations with moderation, objectivity, rationality seems preferable. Because any other way of doing things somehow gives reason to those who believe it necessary to resort to verbal inflation and violence to hide the inanity of their remarks.
This desire to use the right words is not a fantasy; nor is it haircutting. It is a necessity, above all, here again, in a democracy, where one must at all costs distinguish public information from propaganda. Illegitimate propaganda begins as soon as we allow ourselves this erroneous use of concepts, which calls a war that we do not want to name a “special operation” or that once described a one-party political regime as “democratic”.
This misuse of words, often motivated by Manichaeism, plunges the world into disorder and the minds of citizens into confusion, while making them believe that they have eagle eyes.