Two ongoing messes in the world have gotten comparatively little attention with all of the other competing stories in Syria, Yemen, Myanmar, and elsewhere. But they are both impactful and recently reached new inflection points in the last week or so. We all know about Venezuela's slow-motion humanitarian catastrophe, where Maduro's inept management of the country coupled with Chavez's disastrous legacy has resulted in the utter collapse of the economy, widespread emigration, and heartbreaking shortages of basic goods. In a somewhat surprising move, the Venezuelan opposition carried out a 'swearing in' ceremony for the opposition's current leader who isn't currently in jail or exile, Juan Guaido. While far from constitutionally valid, the US and a number of countries in the Americas have recognized Guaido as the interim president and have called for free and fair elections.
Meanwhile, in the DRC, an ongoing political crisis has compounded the general corruption and lawlessness in much of the country, enmeshing the recent (delayed) election in scandal. There was obvious evidence of vote rigging and shenanigans associated with the DRC election, and it appears by most observers that the main anti-corruption candidate actually won the most votes, but Felix Tshisekedi was confirmed as the winner, and is likely to install some Kabila loyalists in key positions.
The thing that puzzles me is the US reaction to each of these crises. The US position on Venezuela surprised me - while Maduro is by no means a legitimate leader, and elections in Venezuela have been plagued by all sorts of unfairness and fraud, recognizing a self-declared interim president with no solid legal basis seems to be deeply undemocratic. Criticism of Maduro and support of the opposition should be a given - and I approve of the recent sanctioning of regime insiders - but arbitrarily recognizing a leader who has not come to power through a democratic process seems foolhardy.
On the other hand, the response to the blatant rigging of the DRC election has been quite muted (by both the US and other major powers) - Kabila's shenanigans in the run-up to the election were bad enough, but the complete lack of concern regarding the rule of law - with packed courts rubber stamping an obviously fraudulent election - should be deeply concerning. And yet the US and others have mostly shrugged and lined up to welcome the new government.
I'm curious what y'all think should be the right kind of response in these sorts of situations - the US has a unique position (albeit somewhat eroded in recent years) as the world's main champion of democratic processes and the rule of law, and leverages its political, diplomatic, economic, and military might to persuade countries to hold to democratic ideals enshrined in their constitutions. But what is the appropriate level of action that doesn't rise to the level of undemocratic interference? Simply tut-tutting and shaking our heads is unlikely to be adequate (as in the DRC), but advocating for undemocratic regime change is also deeply problematic (as in Venezuela). How should the US deal with governments it views as lacking a legitimate democratic mandate?
