In the early hours of January 3, 2026, the long and tragic saga of Venezuela’s descent into chaos reached a dramatic climax. United States forces, acting under orders from President Donald Trump, captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, bringing to an abrupt end more than a decade of authoritarian rule sustained by repression, institutional decay, and economic collapse.
What unfolded in Venezuela was not a sudden catastrophe but the final act of a prolonged institutional failure.
This argument is not merely analytical; it is also informed by personal observation. I first visited Venezuela in 2013, at a time when the country was already showing early signs of stress but had not yet descended into full-scale collapse. The visit took place during the tenure of Senator Felix Oboro as Nigeria’s Ambassador to Venezuela. His Deputy Chief of Mission (i.e., second-in-command), Ambassador Ajayi whom I had earlier known when he served as Acting Nigerian Ambassador to Ukraine in 2003/2004 took me around Caracas and offered invaluable insight into the social and political atmosphere of the country.
During that visit, I was received by the Venezuelan Foreign Minister, who facilitated my tour of the Barlovento region, a coastal community with a strong Afro-descendant population. The encounter was instructive. It revealed how deeply Hugo Chávez had cultivated symbolic and emotional bonds with marginalized communities, particularly those of African descent. Chávez was widely described to me as a charismatic leader, and many Venezuelans insisted that he himself had African blood, an identity he consciously embraced and politicized.
One policy decision stood out in my conversations with ordinary people. Chávez had, almost impulsively, announced that foreigners living in Venezuela, many of whom had gone underground due to expired papers, should come forward and regularize their status by taking up Venezuelan citizenship. For many immigrants, especially Africans, this was nothing short of transformative. A Nigerian man named Chidinma, whom I met during the visit, had lived in Venezuela for over a decade in fear because his documents had lapsed. He described Chávez as “God-sent,” a leader who, in one sweeping gesture, restored dignity and belonging to people long trapped in legal and social limbo.
These encounters underscored a central paradox of the Venezuelan story: Chávez’s populism was not entirely illusory. It delivered real, tangible relief and recognition to those previously excluded from the social contract even as it simultaneously laid the groundwork for the later hollowing out of institutions. Under Hugo Chávez and later Maduro, the Venezuelan state promised prosperity through expansive populist social programs financed almost exclusively by oil revenues. When global oil prices collapsed in the mid-2010s, the government chose denial over reform, doubling down on unsustainable fiscal policies and monetary recklessness.
The consequences were devastating. Hyperinflation erased savings, food shortages became routine, and essential medicines vanished from shelves. By 2024, more than 80 percent of Venezuelans lived below the poverty line, with over half trapped in extreme poverty. An estimated 7.7 million citizens fled the country, creating one of the largest refugee crises in modern history. This was not merely economic mismanagement; it was a profound breach of the social contract, as the state failed to deliver the most basic goods it had pledged to provide.
Governance failures compounded the crisis. Faced with popular discontent, the Maduro regime responded not with accountability but with repression. Political opponents were jailed, civil liberties curtailed, and elections—including the widely condemned 2018 and 2024 polls—were reduced to hollow rituals. Protests were met with lethal force: in 2017 alone, 125 demonstrators were killed, while post-2024 crackdowns left dozens dead and more than 2,400 detained. The judiciary, packed with loyalists since 2004, lost all independence, becoming an instrument of regime survival rather than justice. Security forces and pro-government militias operated with impunity, shredding the remnants of state legitimacy.
Maduro framed this collapse as heroic resistance to “U.S. imperialism.” The reality was far starker: a leadership that prioritized its own survival over stewardship of the nation, transforming a once-vibrant democracy into a humanitarian disaster zone.
STATEHOOD, LEGITIMACY, AND THE ILLUSION OF PERMANENCE
The modern nation-state is often mistakenly viewed as a permanent fixture of the international system—defined by rigid borders, flags, and bureaucracies. In truth, statehood is a fragile psychological and political equilibrium sustained less by coercion than by belief. When citizens cease to believe in the legitimacy of their rulers, the state does not simply weaken; it begins a process of failure.
This collapse is rarely sudden. It unfolds gradually through the erosion of political legitimacy and the systematic breach of the social contract. Institutions meant to protect citizens and enforce the rule of law are hollowed out, repurposed for regime survival, or abandoned to elite predation. What follows is not disorder alone, but the transformation of the state itself—from guardian to predator.
Since the end of the Cold War, state fragility has become a defining feature of global politics. Colonial legacies, economic volatility, and the systematic “sucking dry” of state competencies by unscrupulous elites have produced a growing number of failed and failing states. In this context, legitimacy is the primary currency of stability. It allows governments to collect taxes, enforce laws, and maintain order without constant violence. Once the implicit “mandate of heaven”—the moral consent of the governed—is forfeited, the social contract dissolves and failure accelerates.
LEGITIMACY, THE SOCIAL CONTRACT, AND INSTITUTIONAL DECAY
State stability rests on a self-reinforcing triangle: legitimacy, the social contract, and institutional strength. Effective institutions deliver public goods; those goods sustain the social contract; and the fulfillment of the contract generates legitimacy. When one pillar collapses, the entire structure is compromised.
Legitimacy itself has multiple dimensions. Max Weber defined the state by its monopoly on the legitimate use of force, but sociological traditions emphasize moral authority and social cohesion. In functional states, coercive power and moral authority coexist. In failing states, force is retained while legitimacy evaporates. The state becomes predatory, using violence not to protect society but to suppress it.
The social contract operationalizes legitimacy. Citizens surrender certain freedoms in exchange for security, welfare, and political participation. When the state can no longer provide protection, plunders public resources, or silences dissent, it unilaterally breaches this contract. Citizens respond through “exit” (emigration) or “voice” (protest and resistance)—both unmistakable signals of state failure.
Institutions form the skeleton of this contract. In healthy states, courts, central banks, and civil services operate autonomously and professionally. In fragile states, they are captured by “limited access orders,” where elites monopolize power and resources. This creates a vicious cycle: institutions fail because they lack legitimacy, and legitimacy erodes because institutions no longer function.
VENEZUELA: A BLUEPRINT FOR MODERN STATE COLLAPSE
Venezuela represents the most instructive example of 21st-century state failure driven by institutional sabotage. It did not collapse for lack of resources; it collapsed because its institutions were deliberately dismantled. Vast oil wealth—paradoxically—enabled this decay by allowing the government to replace institutional legitimacy with populist patronage.
The decisive rupture came with the destruction of judicial independence. Under Chávez and intensified by Maduro, the judiciary was transformed into a legal weapon of repression. Constitutional manipulations and “judicial emergency committees” purged independent judges and replaced them with loyalists. By 2021, approximately 85 percent of judges held provisional status, subject to dismissal at executive whim.
The Supreme Court became an enforcement arm of authoritarianism—nullifying the opposition-led National Assembly and legitimizing human rights abuses. The rule of law collapsed, turning the state into the primary violator rather than protector of rights.
Economic institutions followed the same path. The central bank and PDVSA were stripped of professionalism and raided for political ends. Thousands of skilled oil workers were replaced by loyalists and military officers, crippling production. Hyperinflation, driven by unchecked monetary expansion, destroyed the currency. By 2025, dollarization had replaced national monetary sovereignty. The state’s failure to provide food, healthcare, and livelihoods triggered mass migration and social collapse.
AFRICA’S WARNING SIGNS
Venezuela’s tragedy offers urgent lessons for Africa, where similar patterns of institutional decay and social contract breakdown are visible.
Equatorial Guinea: Kleptocracy Institutionalized
Equatorial Guinea epitomizes the kleptocratic state. Despite extraordinary oil wealth and a GDP per capita rivaling developed economies, the majority of citizens live in extreme poverty. Since 1979, power has been monopolized by a narrow elite that treats public resources as private property. Institutions are hollow, dissent is criminalized, and the state functions as a mechanism of extraction rather than service.
Cameroon: Identity, Exclusion, and Fragmentation
Cameroon’s fragility stems from exclusionary governance. The Anglophone crisis reflects the state’s failure to uphold an inclusive social contract in a multicultural polity. The dismantling of federal protections and violent repression of peaceful protests fractured legitimacy, giving rise to insurgency, criminal economies, and territorial loss.
Uganda: The Weaponization of Justice
Uganda illustrates the “curse of liberation,” where former liberators entrench themselves indefinitely. The use of military courts to try civilians and the erosion of term limits mirror Venezuela’s judicial capture. As the 2026 elections approach, reliance on coercion signals a dangerous trade-off between regime survival and long-term stability.
Eritrea and Congo-Brazzaville: Stasis and Dynastic Rule
Eritrea exists as a siege state, with all institutions subsumed under a security apparatus. Congo-Brazzaville combines oil dependency with dynastic ambition, transforming the state into a familial asset rather than a public trust. In both cases, institutional paralysis undermines resilience.
NIGERIA: CRISIS, CHOICE, AND REFORM
Nigeria occupies a pivotal position. It retains democratic traditions and a vibrant civil society, yet suffers from a deep crisis of trust.
#EndSARS and the Broken Contract
The 2020 #EndSARS protests exposed the collapse of the protection mandate of the Nigerian state. Security forces became predators, and accountability was absent. The repression of subsequent protests deepened alienation, fueling the “Japa” exodus that mirrors Venezuela’s pre-collapse brain drain.
2026 Reforms: Renewal or Rupture?
Nigeria’s 2026 tax and economic reforms represent a potential strategic reset. Yet reform without legitimacy is dangerous. Taxation without service delivery risks accelerating social fracture. The Lagos governance model—linking taxation to visible public goods—offers a possible national pathway.
CONCLUSION: REBUILDING THE SOCIAL COMPACT
State failure is neither accidental nor inevitable. It is the result of choices—of institutional neglect and broken trust. Venezuela’s collapse, and Africa’s warning signs, underscore a simple truth: legitimacy cannot be replaced by force, patronage, or propaganda.
Resilience requires a renegotiated social contract grounded in:
• Independent Institutions – Courts and civil services must serve the law, not rulers.
• Decentralized Power – Inclusive governance reduces conflict and improves delivery.
• Citizen Accountability – Civil society is a repair mechanism, not a threat.
• Investment in Public Goods – Performance, not rhetoric, earns legitimacy.
Stability is not the absence of protest; it is the presence of justice. A state endures not because it is feared, but because it is trusted. When citizens believe in the contract, they obey willingly. When they do not, collapse becomes inevitable.
A strong state is not defined by armies or decrees, but by dignity, opportunity, and justice. Legitimacy must be earned—continuously.
• Prof. Steve Azaiki is Co-Chairman, National Think Tank Nigeria and Coordinator, Africa Policy Research Consortium (APRC)
