other trades. In Spain and Italy legislative assemblies and councils of state were
therefore organized around such trade corporations rather than around geo-
graphic constituencies and the ‘capricious’ functioning of competitive elec-
tions. The convenience of corporatist theory from a fascist point of view was
evident: it by-passed both class conflict and democratic elections. Durkheim
had had rather different aspirations, looking to the corporations to introduce
the moral training and social discipline needed to overcome modernanomie,
since he regarded the state as too distant and emotionally neutral to be able to
solve these problems.
The alternative modern meaning of corporatism (the increasing tendency
for the state to work in close co-operation with major business corporations
andtrade unions) is usually distinguished from the older meaning by being
labelledneo-corporatism.
Coup d’Etat
Coup d’e ́tat describes the sudden and violent overthrow of a government,
almost invariably by the military or with the help of the military. A coup d’e ́tat
tends to occur during a period of social instability and political uncertainty, and
is usually the work of right-wing elements determined to impose a social
discipline and political order that is felt to be missing. It is distinguished from a
revolution, which usually implies a major change in the social structure or
political order. However, the prevailing atmosphere which can precede a coup
can be the same one which would allow a revolution to succeed, as was seen in
the Soviet Union in 1991.
Coups d’e ́tat replace only the ruling group, without necessarily altering the
social context in which they rule. Sometimes the makers of the coup d’e ́tat
return power to the politicians after a fairly short period, when they believe
that their aims of stabilizing and ordering the political system have been
achieved. This was true, for example, of the Greekjuntaand of various coups
d’e ́tat in Africa and Latin America. More frequently, an initial promise to do so
is reneged on. The sociological conditions in which a successful coup d’e ́tat is
possible are fairly specific, combining a widespread acceptance of the basic
social order with great distrust of the ruling political groups. The tendency of
the military to be involved in coups d’e ́tat stems from their virtual monopoly of
coercive means and the way in which they are often seen as apolitical or even
‘above politics’. In less developed societies the military are also likely to have a
near monopoly of technological and organizational skills.
Coups need to be distinguished from ‘putsches’, as well as from revolutions.
A coup is carried out by people and bodies which were already part of the
power structure, such as army officers, disaffected members of the cabinet or
senior civil servants. A putsch is carried out by a small group of leaders, with
Coup d’Etat