The political scientist Jay Ulfelder has referred to that as a “Schrödinger’s coup,” after the Austrian physicist, Erwin Schrödinger, writing that such cases “exist in a perpetual state of ambiguity, simultaneously coup and not-coup” with no hope of forcing the events into a “single, clear” category.

Attempts to impose a label often turn on unknowns and unknowables. When generals announce that the president should step down, are they threatening force or merely signaling that they will not disperse protesters? Does the distinction even matter?

Bolivia may yet find itself more firmly planted in one category or the other, either because of new developments or the emergence of new information. But, so far, what is known helps to illustrate how modern uprisings can defy the urge to find a neat category.

Seemingly, the events in Bolivia fit the popular conception of a street revolution: Citizens filled the streets to demand the resignation of a leader who refused to respect the limits on his power, eventually recruiting powerful institutions from the left and right to make that come about. The government remains in the hands of elected civilians, who have promised new elections, and Mr. Morales remains free.

It also seemingly matched the popular conception of a coup, with the military calling on the president to step down and, sure enough, with that happening. Mr. Morales himself called his removal a coup. While he has since softened his language, he has also accepted asylum in Mexico.

In one conception, the people heroically saved democracy; in the other, a handful of elites cravenly betrayed it. Both cite the same set of facts.