As the humanitarian crisis in Venezuela deepens, calls have arisen to remove President Maduro from power. This is a classic example of regime change, a policy that involves one country covertly or overtly interfering in another nation’s government with the goal of removing its leadership and replacing it. These policies may include backing a military coup, supporting an uprising, or imposing sanctions that force the leader to step down.
The main objective of regime change is to replace the existing government with a friendlier one, either to spread democracy or advance economic interests. Unfortunately, these policies often fail. The reason is that in order for a government to be effective, it must have the support of or control over its people. When externally-imposed leaders face domestic audiences that want different things, the results are invariably negative. They drive a wedge between patrons and proteges or, even worse, between their own populations and the foreign governments they serve.
The use of regime change undermines the effectiveness of other tools that promote freedom and improve human rights around the world. It also harms American national security by strengthening the hand of peer competitors such as Russia and China, who are far more likely to view American threats to their sovereignty as a justification for intervening in the affairs of their own citizens.
Despite the failures, many policymakers continue to favor forcible regime change, perhaps because they focus on the desirability of their goals and neglect the full resources required to achieve them. They should instead consider the long-term aggregate effects of such actions, which more than offset any purported benefits.