Democracy at Gunpoint: Venezuela and Global Order
The world is truly shocked and speechless. Since hearing this news on the morning of 3rd January 2026, like many others, I was consumed by disbelief and surprise. How is it possible? The head of an independent, sovereign state was arrested by force and taken to another country? It is not an emotional question, but it pushes us towards a deep crisis of international politics, law and morality. This incident has once again exposed the hypocrisy within the discourse that the Western world has long preached in the name of democracy, religious freedom, the right to expression and territorial integrity. Is this a new kind of brutality? A new form of imperialist aggression? Or is it simply an explosion of demonic madness? It reminds me of a book titled “Democracy at Gunpoint – The Greek Front” by Andreas Papandreou, Published by Andre Deutsch, London in 1971. The book explains how external forces during cold war period undermine democratic aspirations in Greece. The author clearly examined how external political, military and ideological influence shaped socio-political system of Greece and shattered its democratic aspirations. From the historical standpoint, the book exposed the contradiction between the rhetoric of defending democracy and the true reality of suppressing sovereignty.
Who does not know the incidents of Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq and Libya. In December 1989, the United States conducted a military operation in Panama. The same justification was used. Justice, “law” and “democracy” should be established. At that time, the entire country was practically turned into a battlefield, thousands of civilians were killed, and Panama’s elected leader Manuel Noriega was arrested. Yet, the responsibility for that bloodshed has not been fully recognised by the international court of conscience to this day. Whether it is Panama or Venezuela, the situation is alarmingly the same. The powerful state is itself the judge, the lawmaker, and the punisher. Sovereignty is no longer a fundamental principle, but rather a conditional advantage for the powerful. The question arises: is democracy a political system formed by the consent of the people, or is it a democracy recognised by global power? If a state can assume its moral position as universal and use military force inside another state to remove the head of state, then who is international law for? Panama’s past and Venezuela’s present together remind us that “might is right” is the unwritten rule of the international system. Democracy and sovereignty will only survive in speeches and declarations, not in real politics.
The US has portrayed this incident as a “judicial evasion operation by law enforcement agencies” in its crude interpretation, but the reality is quite the opposite. The attacks on military targets, the armed presence in the air and on the ground, the active operation of special forces, and the forcible detention of an elected president leave no room for doubt that this is a full-scale military operation. The transfer of the Venezuelan President and his wife to the United States is a clear and serious violation of the fundamental principles of the UN Charter of national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence. Under international law, no state has the right to use military force on its own initiative within the territory of another sovereign state, no matter how serious the accusation. Yet this incident shows that powerful states often prioritise their own legal frameworks over international law and use the language of ‘justice’ for political and strategic interests. Hence, the question here is no longer just about the future of Maduro or Venezuela, but a deeper and more uncomfortable one. Does international law really apply equally to all states, or is it just a binding rule for the weak and a moral exhortation to be ignored by the strong? The answer to this question lies in the real crisis of fairness and credibility of the current global system.
The outpouring of condemnation from Latin America to Eurasia in response to this incident is not a mere diplomatic formality, but an expression of deep and collective horror. Brazilian President Lula da Silva, condemned the US military attack on Venezuela and the capture of President Nicolas Maduro, calling it an “unacceptable line” and a “grave affront to Venezuela’s sovereignty.” Colombian President Gustavo Petro described Washington’s actions as an “assault on the sovereignty” of Latin America. Chile’s President Gabriel Boric also strongly condemned and called the situation as ‘criminal attack.’ Antonio Guterres, of the United Nations pointed out that the conflict has now set a ‘dangerous precedent.’ The response from China and Russia has been direct. Russia’s Foreign Ministry called for the release of Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro and his wife from U.S. custody. These sentiments capture the broadening gap and distrust in the emerging world order. In this context, the principal question becomes evident. Is democracy a virtue in and of itself, or is it a tool to safeguard the geopolitical goals of the hegemonic powers? If a state considers itself the only virtuous state, why, then does head of a sovereign state become subject to military removal by another state?
The current event in Venezuela reminds us of the “Monroe Doctrine.” In `1823, President Monroe proclaimed that the United States would view any European interference in the Southern Continent as an act of hostility. However, Latin America, in the eyes of the United States, was to be fully protected by the United States. This policy, in its evolution, has created the hegemony of the United States over the whole region. The concept of “America for Americans” is used to justify US control of all the territories to ensure that Washington has the unchallenged power to decide who should be in control of the territories of the West. This ideology has created a precedent for the removal of a democratically elected government, and the use of military force and invasion. The crisis in Venezuela shows how a policy spanning two centuries continues to institutionalise the use of force in contemporary geopolitics. This makes the question more pressing: does the legacy of the Monroe Doctrine keeps Latin America safe, or does it make the region an ever-present experimental site for disorder? Will the use of force become the `new normal?
As noted by Socrates, some people believe that making a profit is far worse than suffering an injustice. Today, however, moral sense feels like it is in exile. Is it not true that Socrates described the state as a body ailing in injustice, suffering from the overbearing weight of power? Is it not true that, as Aristotle said, justice is not about power, but about the restraint of its use? This leads to the question, is aggression the pinnacle decline in global moral standards? Will reality change? If a superpower can place itself above law and justice and remove the head of state of a neighbouring state, will not other major states tomorrow also raise the same argument against their ‘uncomfortable’ neighbours? Is the world ultimately moving towards a dark future where Heraclitus’s infallible warning will come true, “War is the father of all things,” and justice, law and morality will remain only memories captured in speeches, research and the pages of history?