In foreign hands: A photo released by the DEA shows captured Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro wearing a hoodie made by a Maine-based
apparel company after his arrival in New York under US custody. Photo: DEA
The principle of sovereignty has long stood as the bedrock of the international system.
Enshrined in international law and defended by global and regional institutions, it affirms the right of states to govern their affairs free from external interference.
Yet recent developments across regions of the Global South suggest that sovereignty is no longer challenged solely by foreign armies or colonial ambitions but also by popular despair, economic collapse and the failure of postcolonial governance.
The growing tension between legal sovereignty and lived survival is vividly illustrated by foreign incursions in Latin America and military takeovers in Francophone Africa.
In Latin America, Venezuela presents a troubling example of how sovereignty can be challenged through indirect and unconventional means.
In recent years, the Venezuelan state has faced intense external pressure in the form of sanctions, covert operations and alleged attempts at regime change, including a foiled incursion reportedly aimed at capturing President Nicolás Maduro.
While such actions clearly contravene international law, particularly the prohibition on intervention in the internal affairs of sovereign states, they also expose a deeper crisis.
Venezuela’s prolonged economic collapse, hyperinflation and institutional decay have left millions impoverished, disillusioned and struggling to survive. In this context, the state’s formal sovereignty appears intact on paper, yet hollow in practice.
On the African continent, particularly in Francophone West and Central Africa, sovereignty is being challenged from within.
Military juntas in Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea and the Republic of Niger have seized power through coups, directly violating constitutional order and regional frameworks such as the Economic Community of West African States (Ecowas) Protocol on Democracy and Good Governance and the African Union’s zero-tolerance stance on unconstitutional changes of government.
These military takeovers are, without question, illegal under both regional and international norms.
Yet what distinguishes this current wave of coups from earlier eras is the reaction of the public. In city after city, citizens poured into the streets not in protest but in celebration.
This public response is unsettling for defenders of liberal democracy but revealing for analysts of state legitimacy.
For decades, many of these countries operated under civilian governments that were formally democratic but substantively exclusionary.
Elections were held, constitutions upheld and international partners reassured, yet everyday life for citizens remained defined by poverty, unemployment, corruption, insecurity and hopelessness.
In such contexts, democratic governance became associated not with representation or prosperity but with elite capture of power and foreign dependency.
When soldiers overthrew these governments, many citizens perceived not a rupture of order but a break from stagnation.
The joy displayed by sections of the Venezuelan opposition at any perceived weakening of the Maduro regime mirrors this sentiment from a different angle.
While foreign incursion or regime capture violates the principle of sovereignty, some citizens, exhausted by years of hardship, interpret such moments as opportunities for change.
This reaction does not necessarily reflect an endorsement of foreign domination or military rule but rather a profound loss of faith in existing political arrangements.
When sovereignty fails to protect livelihoods, borders and constitutions lose their emotional meaning.
This presents a fundamental dilemma: should adherence to international law and regional democratic norms take precedence over popular demands for survival and dignity?
International institutions tend to answer in the affirmative, arguing that normalising coups or foreign intervention sets a dangerous precedent and undermines global order.
From this perspective, sovereignty and democracy must be protected even when governments are flawed because the alternative invites chaos, militarism and endless instability.
However, this legalistic position often overlooks a crucial reality: sovereignty is not merely a juridical concept; it is also a social contract.
When states consistently fail to provide security, economic opportunity and basic welfare, their claim to legitimate authority weakens.
Citizens who celebrate juntas or foreign disruptions are not necessarily rejecting sovereignty as an idea; they are rejecting a version of sovereignty that benefits political elites while condemning the majority to perpetual suffering.
The response of Ecowas and the African Union further complicates this debate. Sanctions imposed on coup-led states, though intended to restore constitutional order, often exacerbate civilian hardship.
Borders close, prices rise and livelihoods shrink, reinforcing the perception that regional bodies protect regimes rather than people.
In Venezuela, international sanctions, while framed as tools to defend democracy, have similarly deepened economic pain, blurring the line between moral pressure and collective punishment.
What emerges from these cases is not a simple choice between law and anarchy but a crisis of governance legitimacy.
Upholding international norms without addressing the structural conditions that produce popular discontent risks defending an empty shell of sovereignty.
Conversely, celebrating military takeovers or foreign interventions as shortcuts to change ignores their long-term costs: repression, isolation and the erosion of civic institutions.
The challenge, therefore, is to rethink sovereignty not as an end in itself but as a means to human security and sustainable survival.
International law and regional democratic frameworks remain essential but must be complemented by genuine accountability, economic justice and political inclusion.
Citizens should not be forced to choose between legality and livelihood.
Ultimately, sovereignty that cannot feed, protect or empower its people is sovereignty in name only.
The scenes of public jubilation in the wake of coups or external disruptions are less a rejection of law than a desperate demand for a new political order — one that places survival, dignity and hope at the centre of governance.
Until states and international institutions confront this reality, challenges to sovereignty will continue to arise not from ambition alone but from abandonment.
In summary, sovereignty’s value lies in its ability to ensure human security and dignity.
When states fail to deliver, citizens’ faith in the system erodes. Rather than viewing sovereignty as an end in itself, it should be understood as a means to address pressing needs.
International frameworks must adapt to prioritise human welfare, accountability and justice, recognising that legitimacy stems from serving citizens, not merely from upholding norms.
Dr Samuel Kehinde Okunade is with the University of Johannesburg, South Africa and Dr Kolade Gabriel Olubiyo is with Bowen University, Iwo.