Systemic Analysis: Regime Change as Geopolitical Tool – Patterns, Failures, and Structural Alternatives

Indigenous perspectives frame regime change as a continuation of colonial violence, where external actors impose governance models that sever ancestral ties to land and self-determination. In Venezuela, the 2002 coup attempt against Chávez was seen by many Indigenous groups as an attack on their communal rights, which were later constitutionally enshrined. The erasure of these voices in mainstream narratives reflects a broader pattern of silencing non-Western political agency.

Regime change has been a recurring tool of imperial powers since the 19th century, from the British in Persia to the U.S. in Guatemala and Vietnam. The 1953 Iranian coup, orchestrated by the CIA and MI6 to reinstate the Shah, set a precedent for modern interventions, where economic interests (e.g., oil) justified political subversion. The 1973 Chilean coup, backed by U.S. corporations and the CIA, demonstrates how 'regime change' often serves to crush socialist experiments that threaten corporate profits.

In Latin America, regime change is often associated with the 'School of the Americas,' where U.S.-trained militaries overthrew democratically elected leaders, as in Brazil (1964) and Argentina (1976). African scholars like Frantz Fanon critiqued regime change as a tool of neocolonialism, where former colonial powers maintain control through proxy governance. In Southeast Asia, the 1965 Indonesian coup, backed by the U.S., led to the massacre of over 500,000 communists, illustrating how 'success' is defined by Western interests.

Political science research, such as the Correlates of War Project, shows that regime change interventions have a success rate of less than 30% in achieving stable democratic outcomes. Studies by the RAND Corporation and academic journals highlight how external interventions often exacerbate civil conflicts by empowering factions that prioritize foreign allegiance over local governance. The 'democratic peace theory' is empirically challenged by cases like Iraq 2003, where regime change led to state collapse and sectarian violence.

Artistic responses to regime change, such as Gabriel García Márquez's *The Autumn of the Patriarch* or Ai Weiwei's *Remembering*, depict the psychological and cultural trauma of authoritarian overthrow. Spiritual traditions like Buddhism and Indigenous cosmologies frame regime change as a violation of *dharma* or *pachamama*, where harmony is disrupted by external forces. The 2019 Bolivian coup, which ousted Evo Morales, was met with protests and artistic resistance, including the burning of colonial statues as acts of defiance.

Scenario modeling by the CIA's Global Trends reports suggests that unchecked regime change operations will fuel anti-Western sentiment, increasing the risk of nuclear proliferation and cyberwarfare. Alternative futures, such as the rise of multipolar alliances (e.g., BRICS+), could reduce U.S. hegemony in regime change but also exacerbate proxy conflicts. The proliferation of private military companies (e.g., Wagner Group) indicates a shift toward decentralized, profit-driven interventions, complicating accountability.

Marginalized voices, including women, Indigenous peoples, and Global South activists, are systematically excluded from regime change narratives, despite bearing the brunt of its consequences. In Venezuela, Afro-descendant and Indigenous communities have documented how U.S.-backed sanctions and coup attempts disrupted their communal economies and cultural practices. Feminist scholars like Cynthia Enloe argue that regime change often reinforces patriarchal structures, as seen in the rise of religious fundamentalist groups post-intervention.