Whether the aim is political, economic, or humanitarian, there is a growing scholarly consensus that regime change does not deliver on its promises. Instead, these operations often produce deleterious side effects that undermine the intended goals. Even if successful, they often involve lengthy nation-building projects that are costly for the intervening power and the target country.
Regime change refers to a policy that involves the use of covert or overt policy mechanisms, including diplomatic and economic tools, to attempt to change the leadership and political power structure of another nation-state. It also includes supporting or assisting opposition leaders to become the new government. For this policy to be legitimate, there needs to be a significant proportion of the population in the targeted country that want the current government to go and – ideally – a viable alternative waiting in the wings to assume power.
The argument made by proponents of regime change is that a despotic government will harm its own people, and if they were given the opportunity to elect a government that has their best interests in mind, they would choose one. However, this ignores the fact that for democracy to take hold, certain economic and cultural conditions must be met.
The overuse of this tool also undermines the effectiveness of other foreign policy tools that are far more successful at promoting democracy and human rights around the world. In addition, it draws the United States into a lengthy institution-building project that is expensive for both its forces and the target country’s citizens.