Name Your Junta!

In Nineteen Eighty-Four, George Orwell coined the term "doublethink" to describe the act of "holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them...To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them."  Orwell's sinister, faceless government specialized in doublethink. This is most evident in the government's ironic naming conventions: Its authoritarian political system was called "English Socialism," its wars were overseen by the "Ministry of Peace," and its police forces fell under the "Ministry of Love."

In the nonfictional world, there is one type of government that has really run with that notion: the juntas that often overthrow civilian governments to take power themselves. History is lousy with examples of military governments who paradoxically name themselves "peace councils" -- or align themselves, at least superficially, with similarly lofty ideals. In light of Thailand's most recent foray into military governance (and its new government's delightfully Orwellian moniker) we've assembled a list of some of our favorites junta names.

But first: Are you wondering what to call your hastily assembled military government? We're here to help. Just type your name into the fields below and our automatic junta name generator will come up with one for you.


Name Your Junta!

First Name:
Middle Name:
Last Name:

The name of your Junta is:




Our Top 5 Orwellian Junta Names:


1. Thailand: The National Peace & Order Maintaining Council
After Thailand's military declared martial law this week, Army General Prayuth Chan-ocha dismissed the country's caretaker government, bestowed upon himself the powers of prime minister, and assembled a military-led ruling body called the National Peace & Order Maintaining Council. This is Thailand's 12th military-led coup since 1932.

2. Myanmar: The State Law & Order Restoration Council
When Burma's military overthrew the country's socialist government in 1988, it established a new ruling body called the State Law & Order Restoration Council (SLORC), which was led by military officers. The newly formed authoritarian government asserted near total control over its people -- outlawing public assembly, imposing strict press censorship, and imprisoning thousands of political dissidents. (In an effort to eliminate colonial legacies, SLORC changed the country's name from Burma to Myanmar.)  In 1997, leaders abolished SLORC and created the softer-sounding State Peace and Development Council (SPDC).

3. Poland: Military Council of National Salvation
Led by Army General Wojciech Jaruzelski, the Military Council of National Salvation (or Wojskowa Rada Ocalenia Narodowego)ruled Poland from late 1981 to 1983, imposing martial law to crush any political opposition. Formidable though it was, the junta wasn't immune from ridicule. Opponents of the regime pitted the junta, whose initials (WRON) mean crow in Polish, against Poland's national symbol, a white eagle. Graffiti bearing the slogan "The crow will never defeat the eagle" began appearing around Warsaw.

4. Somalia: Supreme Revolutionary Council
Following the assassination Somalia's president In 1969, a bloodless military coup paved the way for a military government, which adopted the rather grand name, Supreme Revolutionary Council. Led by Army Major Siad Barre -- a self-proclaimed revolutionary -- the junta ruled for 21 years before being overthrown by armed opposition groups.

5: Liberia: People's Redemption Council
In 1980, a low-ranking Liberian Army officer named Samuel K. Doe led a coup against Liberian President William Tolbert, killing him and executing 13 of his associates. Victorious, Doe made himself a general and created the People's Redemption Council, which consisted of himself and several other low-ranking officers. He managed to stay in power until 1990, when rebel soldiers captured and assassinated him.



The Strange Elite Politics Behind Thailand’s Military Coup

Thailand's modern era has now seen so many coups that scholars have lost count. On Thursday, the Thai military once more overthrew the government, marking the 12th coup since the end of the absolute monarchy in 1932. But between the failed coups, aborted putsches, and successful revolts, scholars don't really know many times a Thai government has experienced a violent challenge to its rule.

"Please share your knowledge to help us count Thailand's military coups once-and-for-all," Nicholas Farrelly, a Southeast Asia scholar and a professor at Australian National University, wrote on the website New Mandala this week.

Despite robust economic growth and fitful steps toward full democratization, Thailand can't seem to escape from under the shadow of its long history of military coups. Prior to this week's events, which saw the military first impose martial law and then remove the government outright, the last coup occurred in 2006, when the army ousted then-Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra. This time around, it's Thaksin's sister, Yingluck Shinawatra, and her political allies who find themselves in the military's cross-hairs.

With soldiers surrounding government buildings and tanks parked in the streets of Bangkok, the Thai military is casting itself as a purveyor of order. "In order for the situation to return to normal quickly and for society to love and be at peace again?.?.?.?and to reform the political, economic and social structure, the military needs to take control of power," Gen. Prayuth Chan-ochoa said in a televised address to the nation.

The military has also detained politicians on either side of the country's political divide, including the prominent protest leader Suthep Thaugsuban, which allows it to claim a patina of neutrality in Thailand's increasingly bitter political sparring. Thailand's aggressive anti-government protesters have succeeded in sowing chaos in the run-up to the coup, carrying out protests for the last six months and clashing violently with the government. At least 25 people have died and images of streets shut down by protesters have only reinforced Thailand's image as as a tinderbox of Southeast Asia. As a result, revenue from tourism, a crucial sector of the economy, has seen a marked decline.

In carrying out a coup and deploying soldiers to the streets, the Thai army has at least brought that unrest to an end. As has occurred with previous Thai coups, the return to order on the streets will surely be enough to lead some to call Thursday's events "good coup." That would be a mistake.

We've often written about the concept of a so-called "democratic coup" here at Foreign Policy, and this isn't one. If the notion of a democratic coup sounds oxymoronic, consider the examples Ozan Varol, a professor at Lewis & Clark Law School, cites in his research on the matter: the Turkish coup of 1960 that saw the overthrow of the Democrat Party, which had cracked down on civil and press rights; the 1974 coup in Portugal that saw the end of the Estado Novo military government; and the 2011 coup that overthrew Hosni Mubarak in Egypt.

The last example illustrates how fraught the concept of a democratic coup remains. In the aftermath of Mubarak's fall, Egyptian voters elected a senior member of the Muslim Brotherhood, Mohamed Morsi, as the country's new president. Morsi himself was removed from power a short time later after millions of protesters took to the streets to decry his government and accuse it of trying to impose theocratic law. Three years later, Morsi is facing criminal charges, thousands of members of the Muslim Brotherhood have been imprisoned, and Egypt is hurtling toward what increasingly appears likely to become a new military dictatorship.

Varol defines a "democratic coup" according to the following criteria:

(1) the coup is staged against an authoritarian or totalitarian regime; (2) the military responds to persistent popular opposition against that regime; (3) the authoritarian or totalitarian regime refuses to step down in response to the popular uprising; (4) the coup is staged by a military that is highly respected within the nation, ordinarily because of mandatory conscription; (5) the military stages the coup to overthrow the authoritarian or totalitarian regime; (6) the military facilitates free and fair elections within a short span of time; and (7) the coup ends with the transfer of power to democratically elected leaders

On point one, it fails for Thailand: The ousted government was democratically elected and had taken steps to reconcile with the protest movement by promising new elections. And while the military certainly responded to popular opposition, the governing coalition's ability to consistently win popular elections would point to their support among the people. On point three, the government had called for new elections in response to the protests. On point four, it depends on whom you ask. On the fifth criteria, the answer is an obvious no. And on points six and seven, it remains to be seen -- and the country's long history of coups certainly doesn't point toward an answer in the affirmative.

But there's a more important reason why Thailand will probably never see a democratic coup: its Borgian elite politics that made military intervention an accepted tool of maintaining the elite's grip on power.  The current political stand-off centers on the enduring political divide between the country's elite and a political movement led by the Shinawatra clan and with its powerbase in rural areas. Shinawatra's populist political movement has redistributed power in Thailand away from the elite networks that dominate the capital, and this has made the country's army officers, judges, monarchists, and bureaucrats profoundly worried. The only problem is that Bangkok's elites are completely incapable of cobbling together an electoral coalition capable of winning a national election.

In a fascinating 2013 paper Farrelly -- yes, the poor scholar asking for your help tallying Thailand's coups -- paints a portrait of a craven Thai elite that gladly sends the military into the streets for motives both nefarious and underhanded. Farrelly quotes a 1972 article that describes a coup of the previous year. It could just as well have run today:

The actual causes of the [November 17, 1971] coup lay in Thailand's factional politics, the legislative threat to bureaucratic privilege, and pressure from younger military officers to do away with the trappings of democracy to protect their own political power base.

While Thailand's king is a revered figure, the country's elite has come to use him as a pawn in their attempts to hold on to power. Farrelly argues that Thailand's coup culture is largely centered around the idea of protecting the king, the threats to whom are mostly manufactured reasons to send tanks into the streets. But the safety of the monarchy has nonetheless become a rhetorical gloss whose continued deployment provides the basis of an elite culture all too willing to use the military to achieve its political goals.

Indeed, on Thursday Gen. Prayuth assured Thailand that the military "will protect and worship the monarchy."

The same can't be said about the country's struggling democracy.