The differences in the international responses to the violent conflicts in East Timor (1998–1999), Maluku (1999–2003) and Aceh (1998–2005) are examined in this research. Given the growing acceptance of the significance of the use of military force for humanitarian purposes, the humanitarian crises in Maluku and Aceh might prima facie have justified humanitarian intervention similar to that in East Timor. By analysing the differences from the Indonesia’s domestic political point of view it is clear that the conscience-shocking situation caused by the violent conflicts was not the compelling factor for the international community to militarily intervene. The deployment of a multinational force in East Timor (INTERFET) was decided only after the UN and foreign major countries believed that such military intervention would not jeopardize the ongoing process of democratization in Indonesia. This suggested that Indonesia’s domestic circumstance was central to whether a similar measure in Maluku and Aceh would take place or not. Due to the reformasi (political reform) in Indonesia within which the independence of East Timor took place, two main changes within Indonesian politics, namely the growing sentiment of anti-international intervention and the continuing democratization process, helped to ensure that humanitarian intervention in the two other regions did not happen. / These two conditions were fortified by the increasingly consolidated democratic politics which brought the communal conflict in Maluku to the Malino Peace Agreement. The emergence of a stronger and democratic government in Indonesia, furthermore, made cooperation with the international community possible in seeking a peaceful resolution to the armed conflict in Aceh. By involving the Crisis Management Initiative (CMI) the government of Indonesia and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) agreed to the Helsinki peace agreement and accepted the role of the Aceh Monitoring Mission (AMM) to secure its implementation. Thus, a strong democratic government made an international military intervention for humanitarian purposes unnecessary.

Denna uppsats undersöker sambandet mellan demokrati och militärkupper i Afrika efter avkoloniseringen, med särskilt fokus på Sahelregionen. Trots globala framsteg för demokrati är Afrika den region i världen som upplevt flest kupper de senaste sjuttio åren. Studiens syfte är att undersöka sambandet mellan militärkupper, demokratiska processer och stabilitet i Afrika och Sahelregionen genom en kombination av statistisk analys av demokrati och kupper samt tematisk analys av nyhetsartiklar. Fokus ligger på den växande trenden av militärkupper och hur reaktioner på dessa, både internationellt och inhemskt, kan påverka demokratiseringsprocessen. Studien visar att militärkupper är vanligare i auktoritära regimer än i demokratiska stater, vilket avviker från tidigare forskning. Faktorer som svag ekonomi, säkerhetskriser och bristande demokratiska institutioner spelar en roll. I Sahelregionen, där många auktoritära stater är instabila, är risken för demokratisk stabilitet negativt påverkad. Rapporteringen om militärkupper betonar ofta ledarnas misslyckanden med säkerhetsfrågor, vilket legitimerar militära övertaganden och underminerar demokratiseringsprocessen. Internationella reaktioner, särskilt från väst, präglas av sanktioner och biståndsindragningar, vilket kan ha blandade effekter. För att främja långsiktig demokratisk stabilitet krävs en djupare förståelse för orsakerna till kupper samt mer forskning om rollerna som internationella aktörer som Frankrike och Ryssland spelar och hur säkerhetsläget påverkar risken för kupper. / This essay examines the relationship between democracy and military coups in post-decolonisation Africa, with a particular focus on the Sahel region. Despite global advances in democracy, Africa is the region in the world that has experienced the most coups in the last seventy years. The purpose of the study is to examine the connection between military coups, democratic processes and stability in Africa and the Sahel region through a combination of statistical analyses of democracy and coups and thematic analysis of news articles. The focus is on the growing trend of military coups and how reactions to these, both international and domestic, can affect the democratization process. The study shows that military coups are more common in authoritarian regimes than in democratic states, which deviates from previous research. Factors such as a weak economy, security crises and a lack of democratic institutions play a role. In the Sahel region, where many authoritarian states are unstable, the risk of democratic stability is negatively affected. The coverage of military coups often emphasises the leaders' failures on security issues, legitimising military takeovers and undermining the democratisation process. International reactions, especially from the West, are characterised by sanctions and aid withdrawals, which can have mixed effects. To promote long-term democratic stability, a deeper understanding of the causes of coups is required, as well as more research on the roles played by international actors such as France and Russia and how the security situation affects the risk of coups.