>>45170
>>45135
There are different definitions of "revolution". Luttwak defines it as:
>The action is conducted, initially at any rate, by uncoordinated popular
masses, and it aims at changing the social and political structures, as well as the personalities in the leadership
But depending on context it's used either for the change of regime, in a scale of days, or for the transformation conducted by the new regime in a scale of years. Officers called what happened in 1964 a revolution and everyone went along, though nowadays scholars hate the word. It seems the military understood revolution as the exercise of absolute power legitimized by popular support. The first expression of power is, of course, toppling the government. Then they reserved the right to change the rules of the political game whenever they saw fit, as expressed in the Institutional Acts, 17 of which were made. They continued to use the language of revolution, emphasizing the first one's wording ("What has taken place and continues in this moment") and mentioning an ongoing "revolutionary process".
But certainly officers also believed they were changing social and political structures - sidelining the old and corrupt political class, including their past allies, and empowering a "technocratic" administration with new ambitions. A