Golosov G. V. Power in Uniform. Military Regimes in the Modern World. Moscow: Alpina Publisher, 2025. 287 p.
Grigory Golosov is a renowned Russian political scientist who, thanks to his numerous works on the transformation of political regimes in Russia and Eastern Europe more broadly, needs no separate introduction. Last year, for example, he authored a comprehensive study on the transformation of the political regime in Russia.
In 2025, his new work was published by Alpina Publishing Group, one of the last publishing houses in Russia that, amid the current censorship, continues to publish independent works by Russian and Western authors representing a wide range of political views (noteworthy is Alexander Baunov’s work comparing the end of three dictatorial regimes in Europe—Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, and the so-called “black colonels” in Greece).
Golosov’s book focuses on military regimes in the modern world, the conditions around their emergence, and their role in comparison with that of other types of authoritarian regimes in the 20th and 21st centuries.
Even a cursory glance at the book makes it clear that the phenomenon of military regimes is investigated in its entirety—from the most basic and accessible definitions to the dynamics of the establishment and end of military regimes. This type of structure, in which the chapters are arranged not geographically or chronologically, but rather with an attempt to identify certain similarities among regimes, has proven effective in Golosov’s previous works.
The statistics on successful military coups presented at the very beginning of the book clearly demonstrate that the phenomenon is far from a thing of the past. Importantly, throughout the book, the author provides specific page references where the inquisitive reader can find information on specific military coups. This is a valuable resource for historians, political scientists, and journalists.
The format of the book itself does not imply a full academic approach with extensive in-text references to literature and sources. However, as a serious scholar, Golosov includes references to the relevant databases on the history of authoritarian regimes and coups d’état, which should largely remove concerns regarding potential bias or the unscientific nature of the work (pp. 15–17). Golosov, nonetheless, explicitly notes that the book may contain errors, including factual ones.
In separate chapters, Golosov examines the concept of a “military regime,” their chronology and geography, mechanisms for preventing the military from coming to power, the organization of a military coup and the formation of a ruling coalition, the purposes of military rule, the structure of such regimes, imitation institutions, the specifics of the termination of military regimes, as well as the relationship between military regimes and democracy.
Another distinctive feature of the book is its balanced, independent assessment of very recent events. For example, when discussing the problem of so-called “failed states,” Golosov refers to the influence of Wagner PMC, including in the Central African Republic (p. 23).
In his book, Golosov reconstructs what he terms the “technology” of a military coup—that is, the way in which the military both comes to power and maintains it. Among the factors contributing to the success of military coups, he cites effective leadership; the establishment of control over the country’s leading media outlets; the reduction of the threat of potential foreign intervention; the neutralization of the incumbent head of state; the availability of sufficient forces in the capital to carry out the coup; the ability to keep secret plans to overthrow the current government; a high position of coup participants within the existing hierarchy; and, finally, favorable timing given the risk of rapid resistance from the general public or from rival elite groups.
The author also considers the key characteristics of failed coups—that is, factors that lead to the military’s defeat in its attempt to seize power. Particularly illustrative in this regard are his examples drawn from countries where the military has traditionally played a significant role in society, namely Egypt and Turkey. In the latter case, Golosov reconstructs the recent attempts to oust Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, describing the coup processes in considerable detail, while noting that, given the proximity of these events to the present, many essential details remain inaccessible to researchers.
As a political scientist, Golosov is also interested in the problem of institutions. A separate section is devoted to the situation of formal institutions. This section is particularly noteworthy for its case studies, which focus on some of the most prominent regimes, including that of Muammar Gaddafi. In analyzing the complicated political experiment carried out by the Libyan leader, Golosov goes beyond the standard discussion of Libya’s Jamahiriya-era foundational political document, the so-called Green Book (although he does refer to it). He demonstrates that, despite Gaddafi’s apparent distancing from the experiences of neighboring countries such as Egypt and Algeria, the Libyan leader continued to rely on a formally dissolved political organization, the Arab Socialist Union, which maintained local power for decades. Contrary to a widespread view in the scholarly literature and popular media, Golosov notes that Gaddafi retained a relatively high level of authority in the country, as well as a significant number of supporters, even prior to his overthrow, thanks primarily to high oil and gas revenues—not solely to Gaddafi’s well-developed repressive apparatus or propaganda machine.
Another institutional issue examined is the organization of controlled elections by military regimes. In this context, Golosov cites examples of regimes characterized by hard and soft electoral authoritarianism. As an example of the former, the author examines the well-known dictatorship of Suharto in Indonesia, which he limits to the period from 1965 to 1988 (p. 229). As elsewhere in the book, Golosov begins with a historical overview before turning to the events of 1965, when President Sukarno favored the Indonesian Communist Party. Explaining the military’s rise to power as a response to the real or imagined threat posed by the communists, Suharto came to power and quickly launched a large-scale campaign of repression . It is noteworthy that by the time Suharto assumed power, direct elections in the full sense of the term no longer existed in the country. Instead, a system of so-called “Guided Democracy” had been established, under which parliament was formed partly through co-optation—that is, formal inclusion of controlled groups. After the military takeover, these groups were consolidated into what became known as Golkar, the “Joint Secretariat of Functional Groups,” in which the military held an absolute majority of votes. Controlled organizations penetrated virtually all spheres of society and ensured parliamentary election outcomes in line with the military’s preferences. A substantial portion of the political opposition was absorbed into the new system, either through transformation (as in the case of the Indonesian Nationalist Party, which became the Indonesian Democratic Party) or through forced consolidation into a single controlled party, as occurred with Muslim organizations, which were merged into the Unity and Development Party. Fearing the electoral victory of a pro-Muslim party, even one under its control, the military authorities compelled the party’s representatives to fully align with official political positions, thereby undermining its popular appeal.
The book also cites the military regime established in Brazil in the second half of the 20th century as an example of soft electoral authoritarianism. According to Golosov, the Brazilian military regime differs from many of its Latin American counterparts in that it achieved both formal and informal institutionalization relatively quickly (p. 224). The military’s rise to power was justified by the perceived danger of communist rule and the growing influence of left-wing organizations at the time. Accordingly, the initial period of military dominance followed a familiar pattern, marked by harsh repression of political opponents. Over time, however, Brazil developed a party system that did not entirely exclude all actors—except for the radical left—from participation in political life. A decisive factor in this was the existence of internal divisions within the military itself, as some factions continued to advocate a hard-line approach while others favored a gradual softening of the regime. Ultimately, the latter group prevailed.
A significant advantage of Golosov’s research lies in his ability to systematize material and offer a convincing synopsis of each particular dictatorship. An example is his characterization of the Ugandan dictator Idi Amin, who ruled in the 1970s. It is, on the one hand, straightforward but, on the other hand, free from excessive immersion into the phenomenon of, in essence, a rather banal—albeit highly eccentric—dictatorship (pp. 57–58).
In addressing the question of when and why the number of military regimes worldwide began to decline in the late 1970s, Golosov concludes that the primary reason lay in changes in political dynamics within the regions most susceptible to this type of authoritarianism—Latin America and Africa. Moreover, when reflecting on the decline in the popularity of military rule on the African continent in the late 1980s, Golosov rightly points to the loss of support from, and orientation toward, the Soviet Union, after whose collapse many regimes lost their principal external patron (pp. 71–72).
In seeking to explain why military regimes have remained relevant in the present day, the book identifies a complex set of both objective and subjective factors. For example, in examining the cases of Mali and Burkina Faso, the author refers to dissatisfaction within the military over pay levels and military-technical support amid prolonged conflicts with rebels and radical religious groups (p. 86). He also notes that a number of authoritarian regimes have successfully integrated the military into schemes of illegal enrichment. The most representative example in this regard is the dictatorship of Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, who managed to improve the financial position of the military elite and the security forces as a whole by involving them in drug trafficking (p. 87).
As part of this retrospective examination of military dictatorships, the most significant coups of the second half of the 20th century have not escaped the author’s attention. Naturally, even at the most general level, the most illustrative example here is Augusto Pinochet’s rise to power in Chile in 1973. Contrary to the prevailing approach in much of the literature, which rarely offers an independent assessment of the crisis that developed in Chile under Salvador Allende, Golosov correctly notes that Allende’s ascent to power itself occurred in an intense political struggle and was secured by only a minimal electoral majority (p. 117).
In the concluding section of the book, Golosov outlines the key features of military regimes that, in some cases, may ensure their relative stability. One is heightened aggressiveness in foreign policy toward neighboring states, sometimes escalating to the initiation of wars or attacks on other states, although this outcome is by no means inevitable.
According to Golosov, another factor that may strengthen the position of military regimes is their emphasis on countering a “terrorist threat.” The difficulty here, however, lies in the fact that if such efforts do not yield rapid success, military regimes may face the risk of mass resistance, as illustrated by the cases of Guatemala and El Salvador.
Among the negative characteristics of military rule, the author highlights the elevated level of corruption. Noteworthy is Golosov’s observation that military regimes often come to power on a wave of public discontent over corruption, yet ultimately not only fail to reduce it but actively contribute to its expansion.
The economy represents another area of failure. Here, Golosov points to the economic incompetence of military rulers, which frequently leads to deep and prolonged crises and, in some cases, to the eventual replacement of the regime itself.
The issue of heightened repression under military regimes may be viewed from different perspectives. Their coercive nature is never concealed, and in certain cases repression takes the form of mass extermination of specific groups of the population. While the frequently cited example of the mass extermination of Armenians in Turkey may not be accepted by all specialists, the equally well-known but no less illustrative case of the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia is cited more unambiguously.
According to Golosov, a feature that may be regarded as both positive and negative is the political fragility of military regimes. As possible “exit routes” from military rule, he identifies the establishment of another military regime and a transition toward democratization. Notably, he also considers the relatively rare transformation of military rule into a personalist dictatorship as a potential advantage, insofar as it exposes, in particularly stark form, the inherent shortcomings of autocracy.
Golosov’s book Military Regimes in the Modern World can be confidently recommended to a broad readership. It is written in a clear and accessible manner, allowing any interested reader to navigate the material without prior knowledge of specialized political terminology or a detailed history of the countries discussed.
Meanwhile, media reports of the overthrow of leaders in African states or warnings about the possible emergence of military regimes in Latin America—where such experiences have been especially traumatic—show no signs of going away. At the same time, the contemporary global political situation differs markedly from that of previous decades, making a competent and balanced analysis of military rule all the more valuable, as a means both of recalling historical experience and of responding to new challenges.
At the same time, the book does not attempt to be an encyclopedic catalogue of military regimes. For each thesis, the author skillfully provides a concrete narrative drawn from a wide range of countries that often differ sharply in both political traditions and historical experience.
Upon finishing the book, one is left with a lingering, somewhat bitter impression that it has ended too soon—much like the study of military regimes themselves, it seems to be awaiting continuation.