Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

“Though the term coup d'état has been used for more than 300 years, the feasibility of the coup derives from a comparatively recent development: the rise of the modern state with its professional bureaucracy and standing armed forces. The power of the modern state largely depends on this permanent machinery which, with its archives, files, records and officials, can follow intimately and, if it so desires, control the activities of lesser organizations and individuals. "Totalitarian" states merely use more fully the detailed and comprehensive information which is available to most states, however "democratic": the instrument is largely the same though it is used differently.

The growth of the modern bureaucracy has two implications which are crucial to the feasibility of the coup: the development of a clear distinction between the permanent machinery of state and the political leadership, and the fact that, like most large organizations, the bureaucracy has a structured hierarchy with definite chains of command. The distinction between the bureaucrat as an employee of the state and as a personal servant of the ruler is a new one, and both the British and the American systems show residual features of the earlier structure.”