Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro's son, Nicolas Maduro Guerra, led a 15-member delegation to visit Nepal in 2019. His delegation met with Pushpa Kamal Dahal, the then Correspondent Chairman of the Communist Party of Nepal, and other politicians with whom he had fraternal ties.

Perhaps the only top Nepali communists who refused to meet their Venezuelan ‘comrades’ were incumbent President Bidya Devi Bhandari and then Prime Minister Khadga Prasad Sharma Oli. At one time, right-wing critics used to mock the Nepali communists’ fascination with North Korea, Cuba and Venezuela – ‘Bela na Kubela, Venezuela’.

Former President Bhandari and former Prime Minister Sharma Oli have not yet come out in defense of Venezuela’s sovereignty. Apart from Netra Bikram Chand Babusaheb’s army, no other political group has taken to the streets against those violating Venezuela’s sovereignty.

It has not yet been made public what issues Dahal discussed in his one-on-one meeting with Sharma Oli before leaving for New Delhi. An attempt may have been made to explore the possibility of Dahal’s political platform joining the ‘Malagres’ alliance in the elections, the date of which has been set.

It may have reached the point of telling Indian National Security Advisor Ajit Doval that the ‘three tyrants’ are still together in the election. But just as New Delhi has been silent on the Venezuela issue, it is not difficult to understand that Dahal is also hesitant to openly stand against the geopolitical tyranny of the Americans.

Nepal’s right-wing, status quo and ‘Discord’ politicians and thinkers, who stood by Ukrainian President Zelensky in 2022 when Russian President Vladimir Putin attacked Ukraine, which was dominated by Russia before the collapse of the Soviet Union, have adopted the belief that ‘precaution is better than bravery’ and have adopted silence on the Venezuela issue.

Even Nepal’s paramilitary, unconstitutional and ‘discord-created’ government seems to be waiting for the outcome of the UN special meeting before making its formal stance on Venezuela’s sovereignty public.

The world is clearly divided into two – on one side, there is a community that is worried about the implications of US President Donald Trump’s arrogant and shameless aggression on the geopolitical balance, and on the other, there are strategists from America’s rivals, China and Russia, who believe in the belief that ‘those who conquer by force enjoy the earth’.

The Secretary-General of the Council of Europe, Alain Berset, has expressed fears that ‘the move to normalize force and weaponize law will bring profound changes to the emerging world order’. UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has also pointed out that the US attack on Venezuela has set a ‘dangerous precedent’.

Although Taiwan is merely a province ‘awaiting unification’ for China, it is not unusual for the unintended consequences of a naked show of force, such as the capture, kidnapping and detention of the sitting president of an independent country, to excite strong countries and terrify weak countries. 

President Trump’s seizure of Venezuela’s natural resources will affect the world’s mineral, oil markets and the process of de-dollarization. Alternative superpower alliances in the world that are in the process of being formed will take shape.

On the one hand, the recognition of intact sovereignty and on the other hand, internationally accepted standards for humanitarian intervention will be weakened. The world should be concerned about the human rights of the people of Venezuela and the state of democracy in that country, but using an extraordinary diplomatic weapon like the Right to Protect to kidnap a sitting president is the height of arrogance.

Policymakers in other South American countries, such as Colombia, Mexico and Cuba, are waking up to a world where the boundaries of their countries’ sovereignty will now be set by Washington’s strategic strategists.

The world’s policeman

America’s history of interventionist policies is not new. The Monroe Doctrine of 1823 established the Western Hemisphere as a sphere of American influence. The Roosevelt Doctrine of 1904 stated that the United States had the right to intervene in Latin American countries to stop “wrongdoing.”

If the Roosevelt Doctrine had transformed America into the “policeman of the Western Hemisphere,” the so-called “Bush Doctrine” after 2002 effectively transformed America into the “policeman of the world,” with additional powers to carry out regime change in other countries, the negative consequences of which can still be seen in Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. 

The ‘Trump subtheme’ that began to be used in Venezuela is even clearer—it emphasizes America’s primacy in using the resources of South America by force and establishing dominance in those countries, and globalizes the scope of the ‘America First’ mindset.

The latest subtheme has shed even the cloak of interventionist policies such as preventive security of the nation or the promotion of the human rights of ordinary people, legitimizing the jungle king’s belief that the powerful can do whatever they want.

Surprisingly, there are fans of the ‘Trump subtheme’ even in India, a neighboring country that has fallen under the distorted gaze of the Americans, while there are also devotees of the powerful in Nepal who believe that Venezuela has been liberated from Maduro’s abduction. Perhaps because hero worship is a prevalent concept in political psychology, there are those who justify aggressive displays of power even in the potential victim community.

Hero worship often appears in periods of uncertainty, crisis, or distrust of institutions. In such dire circumstances, ordinary people begin to look for clarity on complex issues, a strong person who can implement solutions, and an authority figure who can assure them of the likely outcome. The praise and respect that a hero receives can motivate them to take immediate collective action. But hero worship becomes problematic when it erodes accountability, normalizes the abuse of power, and replaces loyalty to the hero with loyalty to the hero. As rationality disappears, the hero slowly becomes a ‘non-hero’. Before we can define the meaning of a hero, we need to find established definitions of terms like hero, anti-hero, and villain. Choosing the right word to reflect power or order is important because words do not just carry definitions; they also convey purpose, emotion, and social status. Words shape thoughts and decisions and provide practical insights for appropriate communication and personal transformation. Even if knowledge is lacking, the appropriateness of words determines deep understanding. A hero is someone who does not lose his composure in the face of adversity. The hero is brave and he does the right thing for the right purpose with selflessness and honesty. He admits his weaknesses, corrects his mistakes and moves forward with his allies.

The anti-hero is also a kind of hero. He is morally neutral and does not respect social or political values ​​and norms. He can adopt any process to achieve the desired result. He can be cynical, selfish or violent. He works effectively to achieve the wrong goal (such as revenge, overthrow of power or instant gratification).

Therefore, it is not difficult for the anti-hero to find a small but dedicated support. The villain does not even try to hide his malice or selfishness and does not like to get involved in the debate about the right or wrong of his methods. The admirers of the villain applaud his outspokenness.

It is easy to portray the English words ‘hero, anti-hero and villain’ as hero, anti-hero and villain. Can the concept of representative hero, which cannot be understood by such words, be called ‘apnayak’ in Nepali, which means ‘unfairly reprehensible or inferior’ by adding ‘ap’ to the front of the word? Those who do not like lexical innovation may understand it as representative hero, but it is a fact that the speech of self-absorbed and arrogant people in insecure societies is increasing in the contemporary world.

The dominance of adopters

To assess the popularity of adopters in contemporary global politics, it is necessary to understand the attraction of arrogant characteristics such as self-centeredness, self-promotion, over-dramatization, and display of personal ambition associated with the main character syndrome.

In the eyes of supporters suffering from collective insecurity, self-confidence to the point of narcissism is not a weakness but a sign of the adopter’s strength and vision. In a time of uncertainty, chaos and institutional fatigue, the mere presence of such a confident person not only provides them with guidance and reassurance, but also guarantees potential success.

Even though his guarantees have repeatedly proven to be empty, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, who often refers to himself in the third person, has neither stopped saying ‘Ye Modi ki garanti hai’ nor has his supporters stopped applauding him enthusiastically. Overconfident politicians like Trump and Modi are worshipped by their supporters not just as powerful figures but as their representative heroes.

As traditional certainties crumble, old beliefs become obsolete and the future becomes unclear, the world feels disorganized and unfocused. Then, a group of people start looking for a ‘main character’ to connect their collective discontent and shared confusion into a common narrative.

In its 2019 international edition, the American magazine Time had titled Modi’s cover story as India’s Divider-in-Chief. The source of the power of the adopters is the polarization between ‘themselves’ and ‘others’ – they don’t need critics or even admirers. The adopters want blind supporters, and such devotees can only be produced through hysteria, not logic.

By criticizing the so-called ‘deep state’ and ‘technocracy’ and by singing the tune of Trump and nepotism and appeasement, Modi has certainly laid the foundations for nationalist populism, but while patriotism is the main but not the only dimension of his appeal. When a significant section of society is uncomfortable, unstable, anxious, confused and distraught, and starts searching for certainty and stability, the rise of the adopters becomes natural. After the collapse of the dream of socialism in the 1990s, marketism became widespread.

The insecurity created by the ‘over-success’ of the market is fuelling the popularity of adopters. Like other collective geopolitical trends, adopters can also cause global devastation before they disappear.

Just as the Soviet Union’s challenge collapsed by 1990, the post-World War II US-dominated world order is on the verge of imploding – the need to deploy the military to enforce compliance is a sign of weakening hegemony. But the Chinese are still stuck in the conceptual framework of an alternative world order.

Local versions of the original character trend also seem to be diverse. Even if the narrative is deemed unsuccessful, heroes make history and live long in the public memory. No matter how much some historians demonize Bhimsen Thapa, the fact that he saved the country’s independent existence through the Sugauli Treaty cannot be ignored.

Even if no one gives him the status of a hero, the story of Nepal’s institutionalization cannot be written without mentioning him. जंगबहादुरले लुटपाट गर्ने अधिकार र बकसको लोभमा इस्ट इन्डिया कम्पनीका अगाडि र चन्द्रशमशेरले आफ्नो सत्ता सुरक्षित गर्ने उद्देश्यले नेपालको स्वायत्ततालाई बेलायत सरकारको जुनाफमा चढाएर प्रतिनायक भएर इतिहासमा दर्ज छन् ।

कसैकसैले जुद्धशमशेरलाई खलनायक ठहर्‍याउँछन् भने कुनैकुनै पीडित व्यक्तिका परिवार एवं प्रभावित समुदायका लागि राजा महेन्द्र एकतन्त्र, एकल पहिचान र प्रजातन्त्रको षड्यन्त्रमूलक ढंगले हत्या गरेर तानाशाही स्थापित गर्ने खलपात्र हुन् । नेपाललाई अपनायक कहलाउन सक्ने व्यक्ति पाउन भने सन् २०१५ सम्म प्रतीक्षा गर्नुपरेको थियो ।

शर्मा ओलीको राजनीतिक उदय र सम्भाव्य पतन केवल सत्ता आरोह–अवरोहको वृत्तान्त होइन । यो सम्भवतः आत्ममुग्ध व्यक्तिले गणतान्त्रिक व्यवस्थालाई प्रतिरूप नायकको भूमिका निर्वाह गर्दै ‘मुख्य पात्र’ नाटकमा तानेको कथा हो । शर्मा ओलीले कम्तीमा एक दशक— सन् २०१५ देखि सन् २०२५ सम्म— कहिले वैधानिक त कहिले व्यावहारिक शासक भएर सञ्चालन गरेका हुन् ।

त्यति मात्र भए उनी ‘बलियो राजनीतिकर्मी’ कहलिन्थे । तर जब उनले समग्र नेपालका सबै अवयवहरू— राज्य, समाज र राष्ट्रवादी संस्कृति— सबै उनको ‘म’ मा विलय गराउने प्रयत्न गर्दै नेपालको ‘सी वा मोदी’ बन्न सुरु गरेर, उनको सँगसँगै देशको दुर्दिन पनि सुरु भयो । अपनायक इतिहासको पाद टिप्पणीमा समेटिन्छन्, मूलपाठ भने राज्य असफलताको लेखिन्छ ।

सन् २०१३–२०१५ बीचको राजनीतिक अन्योल, गणतान्त्रिक संविधानको अन्तर्वस्तुबारे विवाद र २०१५ को भूकम्पले सिर्जना गरेको राष्ट्रिय आघात शर्मा ओलीका लागि अवसर बनेको थियो । संकटग्रस्त समाज सहमति खोज्दैन, त्यसलाई दृढता र निश्चितता चाहिन्छ— यो मनोविज्ञानलाई उनले तिनताकका राजनीतिकर्मीहरूमध्ये सबभन्दा राम्रोसँग पहिचान गर्न सफल देखिए । अन्य नेताहरू अन्योलमा देखिँदा उनको अदम्य आत्मविश्वासले उनलाई ‘अराजकतामा स्थायित्वका वास्तुकार’ बन्ने अवसर उपलब्ध गरायो ।

तत्कालीन प्रधानमन्त्री अस्वस्थ, कमजोर र दिशाहीन एवं सत्तागठबन्धनको सबभन्दा ठूलो दल विभाजित मनस्थितिमा रहेकाले उनको मनोमानीलाई नियन्त्रण गर्न सक्ने शक्ति कुनै पनि भएन । नेपाली मानसमा गहिरोसँग जडा गाडेको जनोत्तेजक राष्ट्रवादमा एकाधिकार स्थापित गर्ने शर्मा ओलीको रणनीतिले उनलाई छोटो समयमा राजनीतिको शीर्षमा पुर्‍याएको हो ।

उनलाई समर्थन गर्नु देशभक्ति, विरोध गर्नु विदेशी प्रभावको दलालीजस्तै बनाउने दुष्प्रचारको धंगधंगी अद्यापि बाँकी छ । सन् २०१५ को तेस्रो मधेश विद्रोहलाई भारतविरोधी भावनातिर मोड्दै चीनसँगको सम्बन्धलाई प्रतीकात्मक ढाल बनाउनु उनको दोस्रो व्यक्तिगत सफलता तर समग्र देशको दीर्घकालीन हित–विरोधी कर्म थियो । पुच्छ्रे नक्साको प्रकाशनले देशलाई न केही फाइदा भएको छ, न कुनै सकारात्मक उपलब्धिको आशा नै छ ।

तर उनले त्यस्तो कदमको नरम आलोचनालाई नै समेत राष्ट्रविरोधी सावित गर्ने अभियानमा देशका समस्त मिडिया, बुद्धिजीवी र विचार निर्माताहरूलाई आफ्नो पछाडि लामबद्ध गर्न सफल भएका छन् । परम्परागत मिडिया मात्र नभएर ‘अरिंगाल’ र ‘साइबर सेना’ खडा गरेर प्रचारतन्त्र सञ्चालन गरे पनि सन् २०२५ को हरितपीत विद्रोहले उनलाई सेनाको हेलिकोप्टरमार्फत उद्धार गरिने अवस्थामा पुर्‍यायो र देश गैरसंवैधानिक सरकारले गराउन लागेको शीघ्र निर्वाचन कुर्न अभिशप्त छ ।