The Capture of Venezuela’s President and the Crisis of Democratic Norms

The capture of Venezuela’s sitting president, Nicolás Maduro, by the United States under President Donald Trump marks a troubling moment for international law, state sovereignty, and the credibility of democratic leadership on the global stage.

For decades, democracy has been presented as a system governed by law, due process, accountability, and respect for sovereignty. Yet when powerful democratic states bypass these principles in the name of security, justice, or regime change, they undermine the very values they claim to defend. This case forces an uncomfortable but necessary question: Can democracy survive when its most powerful advocates selectively ignore its rules?

Sovereignty Is Not Optional Under International Law

At the core of the international system lies a basic democratic principle applied between states: sovereign equality. Regardless of internal politics, every recognized state has the right to territorial integrity and political independence. Under the UN Charter, the use of force against another state is prohibited except in two narrowly defined circumstances:

1. Authorization by the UN Security Council, or
2. Immediate self-defense against an imminent armed attack.

The unilateral capture of a sitting head of state inside his own country clearly does not fall under either category. Even when a leader is accused of serious crimes, international law does not permit a foreign power to act as police, prosecutor, and jailer simultaneously. If democratic states abandon legal restraint when it becomes inconvenient, then international law becomes a tool of power rather than justice.

Democracy is not only about elections; it is also about procedure. Sitting heads of state enjoy temporary immunity under international law, not to shield wrongdoing indefinitely, but to preserve diplomatic stability and prevent violent power struggles. When powerful nations ignore this principle, they establish a dangerous precedent. Today it is Venezuela, tomorrow it could be any weaker state whose leadership falls out of favor with a global power.

Democracy cannot mean rules for some, force for others.

The Pattern No One Wants to Address

Critics have long noted a troubling pattern in international interventions, that resource-rich states are disproportionately targeted for “liberation.” This was the case for Libya under Muammar Gaddafi, destabilized following NATO intervention during the Obama administration, and also in the oil-rich nation of Iraq which faced invasion under claims later proven deeply flawed. Venezuela possesses one of the largest proven oil reserves in the world.

This pattern does not automatically negate concerns about governance or human rights, but it raises legitimate questions about motivation. When democratic rhetoric consistently aligns with strategic and economic interests, skepticism is not anti-democratic it is civic responsibility.

The overthrow of Gaddafi was framed as a moral necessity. More than a decade later, Libya remains fragmented, unstable, and plagued by militia rule and foreign interference. This outcome highlights a critical truth that removing a leader does not equal building democracy. Democracy requires institutions, social contracts, legitimacy, and internal political processes. External military action often destroys these foundations faster than it creates them.

If democracy is imposed through force, it ceases to be democratic in substance, even if it uses democratic language.

Is Democracy the Problem or How It Is Practiced?

To say “democracy is a scam” may capture public frustration, but it risks misidentifying the real issue. The problem is not democracy as a system. The problem is democracy without consistency, restraint, and accountability. Democratic powers weaken global trust in democratic governance itself when they ignore international law, undermine sovereignty, bypass multilateral institutions, and justify force selectively. This erosion fuels cynicism, strengthens authoritarian narratives, and convinces many in the Global South that democracy is less a universal value and more a geopolitical tool.

If democracy is to remain credible, it must apply equally outward and inward. That means upholding international law even when it limits power, accepting that no state, however powerful, is above the rules it helped create, and also using courts, diplomacy, and multilateral mechanisms not unilateral force.

True democratic leadership is not measured by the ability to remove governments, but by the discipline to respect law even when doing so is inconvenient.

Democracy Loses When Power Replaces Principle

The capture of a sitting Venezuelan president by a foreign power is not just a geopolitical event; it is a stress test for democracy itself. If democracy becomes indistinguishable from coercion, intervention, and selective legality, it risks losing moral authority worldwide.

Defending democracy today means more than opposing authoritarian leaders it means defending the rule of law, sovereignty, and due process everywhere, without exception. Anything less is not democracy. It is power wearing democratic language.