Sovereignty with Responsibility: Defending Governance, Rights, and Democracy
Prof. Dr. Zahurul Alam :
The global retreat of democracy, the erosion of human rights, and the weakening of governance institutions have emerged as defining challenges of the 21st century.
From unconstitutional power seizures and manipulated elections to systematic repression and institutional decay, many states now fall short of the minimum standards required for legitimate governance.
In such environments, development partners and the international community face a persistent dilemma: how to reconcile the principle of non-interference with the moral and legal imperative to defend democracy, human rights, and accountable government.
Sovereignty remains a foundational principle of international relations. Yet sovereignty is not an unconditional license to abuse power, dismantle institutions, or reverse decades of economic and social progress.
When lawful governance is subverted, often through collusion between vested domestic elites and transnational interests, the international community’s responsibility does not diminish; it intensifies.
Within the framework of international norms and legality, proactive, principled engagement is not only permissible but necessary.
Governance, democracy, and human rights are not interchangeable concepts, but they are inseparable in practice.
Governance determines how power is exercised; democracy determines from whom that power is derived; human rights define the limits beyond which power must not go. Weak governance breeds corruption and impunity, undermining public trust.
Democratic erosion hollows out accountability. Human rights violations, once normalized, become instruments of political control rather than aberrations.
Development partners increasingly recognize that economic growth alone cannot compensate for institutional decay.
Countries that sacrifice governance and rights for short-term gain often experience long-term stagnation, capital flight, social fragmentation, and conflict.
International engagement must therefore treat institutional integrity and civic freedoms as prerequisites for sustainable development, not optional add-ons.
The assertion that governance and human rights are purely “internal affairs” is inconsistent with contemporary international law.
States have voluntarily committed themselves to international treaties and conventions that establish clear obligations toward their citizens.
The United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and binding covenants on civil, political, economic, and social rights affirm that certain standards transcend borders.
The doctrine of sovereignty has evolved accordingly. Modern sovereignty implies responsibility: responsibility to govern lawfully, to protect citizens, and to respect fundamental freedoms.
Where states fail, through incapacity or deliberate choice, the international community is neither required nor justified to remain indifferent.
The Responsibility to Protect, Election Integrity Norms, Anti-corruption Conventions, and International Humanitarian Law together provide a lawful basis for collective, proportionate action.
Proactive engagement, when multilateral and rule-based, is not interference; it is the defense of a rules-based international order.
The most constructive role of development partners lies in strengthening institutions rather than endorsing personalities.
Support for independent judiciaries, professional civil services, credible electoral bodies, anti-corruption agencies, and effective local governments, builds resilience against authoritarian capture.
Technical assistance, governance reform programs, and conditional financing can improve transparency, fiscal accountability, and service delivery, provided they are politically informed.
Uncritical budget support or large-scale infrastructure financing, when detached from governance safeguards, risks entrenching illegitimate power structures and accelerating institutional hollowing.
A perfect realism demands acknowledging, that aid is never neutral. Development partners must apply political economy analysis rigorously, ensuring that their interventions empower institutions and citizens rather than subsidize repression or elite consolidation.
The international community has a critical responsibility to uphold and safeguard democratic processes in contexts where they are under systemic threat, extending its engagement beyond the mere conduct of elections.
While democracy cannot be reduced to electoral events alone, electoral legitimacy remains a foundational pillar of democratic governance.
When elections are persistently manipulated, indefinitely deferred, or effectively hollowed out through coercion, repression, or institutional capture, the normalization of such practices must be firmly resisted.
International recognition, diplomatic engagement, development cooperation, and preferential access to global markets should be explicitly conditioned upon verifiable adherence to democratic norms, institutional integrity, and the genuine expression of popular sovereignty.
At the same time, democracy support must extend beyond polling day. Political party development, media freedom, civic education, digital integrity, women’s political participation, and youth engagement are essential to sustaining democratic culture.
Development partners should invest in these long-term foundations, even when immediate political returns appear modest.
Human rights are not abstract ideals; they are operational safeguards against arbitrary power.
International engagement in deficient states must prioritize protection of civil liberties, minority rights, and access to justice.
Support for national human rights institutions, independent media, and civil society organizations remains indispensable, particularly where domestic space is shrinking.
When violations become systematic: arbitrary detention, enforced disappearances, censorship, or violent repression, expressions of concern are insufficient.
Targeted sanctions, visa restrictions, asset freezes, and international investigative mechanisms are lawful, proportionate tools designed to impose costs on perpetrators rather than populations.
Responding to Unlawful Power Capture and Developmental Reversal Perhaps the most consequential test for the international community arises when lawful governance is dismantled altogether.
Military coups, constitutional manipulation, judicial subservience, or oligarchic capture often undo decades of economic and social progress.
Such reversals rarely occur in isolation; they are frequently facilitated by illicit financial flows, external patronage, or transnational networks of interest.
In these circumstances, strict adherence to non-interference becomes untenable.
Development partners and democratic states must act collectively to prevent the normalization of illegality.
This may include suspending non-humanitarian assistance, supporting mediation, invoking international legal mechanisms, or conditioning engagement on restoration of constitutional order.
The objective is not externally imposed regime change but the re-establishment of representative governance capable of protecting citizens’ rights and sustaining development.
The tension between sovereignty and intervention is often overstated. Non-interference prohibits domination, not solidarity; coercion, not accountability.
Proactive engagement, when guided by legality, multilateralism, and proportionality, respects sovereignty by defending its ethical foundations.
Effective international action should prioritize dialogue and incentives while maintaining credible consequences for persistent violations.
Above all, it must remain people-centered, guided by domestic reformers, civil society actors, and independent institutions rather than elite bargains that trade rights for temporary stability.
In an interconnected world, the erosion of governance, democracy, and human rights is never confined within borders. It generates instability, displacement, economic volatility, and security risks that reverberate globally.
Development partners and the international community therefore have not only a moral responsibility but a strategic interest in defending lawful, representative governance.
Sovereignty without accountability is a fiction; stability without rights is fragile. Within the framework of international norms and legality, proactive, principled engagement is both justified and necessary.
The true measure of international action lies not in geopolitical advantage, but in whether it helps societies reclaim institutions that are accountable, democratic, and capable of protecting the dignity and rights of their people.
(The author is Dean
School of Business
Canadian University of Bangladesh)