Is the traditional concept of nation-state, especially defined by the Treaty of Westphalia (1848), valid today? The answer would be no, as the conventional concepts and practices of nation-states are fast changing. Neither nation nor state is fully manifested in politics. If the nation is more or less related to the emotional and cultural aspects of the state, the latter underscores the significance of sovereignty, territory, government and people.

Without sovereignty, a state’s very identity ceases to exist. The essence of the state lies in its autonomy and independence of actions in its name. The erosion of sovereignty is also the loss of independence, to which so much blood has been shed till now. The latest examples include the Russia-Ukraine war, the Russian encroachment and even the invasion of Ukrainian territories. Other examples abound in today’s disorderly world politics, once again reaffirming the Old Greek Sophist Thrasymachus’s dictum, “Justice is the interest of the stronger”.

The undermining of popular sovereignty by both elected officials and retrogressive elements, unreconciled to the new republican order, has given grounds to orthodox nihilism, which, if left untackled, may push the political system into a crisis. The erosion of authority in recent years and public disdain towards the elected oligarchs will likely be complicated. Though a universal phenomenon, the crisis of survival of governments and states is increasingly becoming problematic. Added to domestic vulnerabilities, nation-states confront external impacts resulting in surging foreign policy strains.

The emerging trend of elected authoritarianism worldwide is no less challenging for the survival of nation-states. The so-called democratic countries often resort to temerities and inflexions, adding uncertainties to the already ruptured world order. Despite much credit given to electoral politics adopted to recruit political leaders to rule the country, elections are becoming a façade of democracy. So, questions arise about how such an electocracy, without adding any substance of governmental efficiency and transparency, would justify the value of democracy. Thus, popular sovereignty is undermined everywhere due to the vanishing ethos of ideological commitment and the political leadership’s failure to be prudent and efficient. Moreover, business tycoons, mafias and so-called petty bourgeoisie have usurped politics, making the entire system stymied.

The rise of Trumpism in the United States and its repercussions have stirred the world order, including the US economy. Donald Trump’s capricious approaches to international politics are not expected to succeed, as its reverberations and aggressive responses coming from different directions are negative. Trump’s hyper-populism and claim of being the strongest man on earth have started to gain backlash, as America’s allies and foes are now jointly repelling its new economic and diplomatic measures. Trump’s attempt to bulldoze the established world order, despite its flaws and stigmatisation of diplomacy in foreign policy, also produces uncertainties in international relations.

Although Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy represented a sovereign nation deserving of the honourable treatment expected to be accorded to a head of state and government, the recent White House episode was the opposite. Zelenskyy was not only humiliated but also accused of being an aggressor. Trump and his vice-president, James David Vance, berated Zelenskyy and penalised him for being ungrateful to the US ( for the support given to Ukraine).

The US has weakened Ukraine’s position for negotiation vis-à-vis Russia. Trump first blamed Zelenskyy for waging war against Russia and then withdrew US economic and military support by way of punishing him for the conflict. The US president didn’t even think of abstaining from the United Nations General Assembly voting but instead threw US support in Russia’s favour, thus taking a U-turn from past policies. Some scholars blame Ukraine and Western countries, including the US, for provoking Russia to go to war. John Mear Sheimer, a realist, finds fault with Ukraine and the Western powers for not saving Ukraine's territories, suggesting that any further continuation of war means the loss of more territories. Nor would Europe be able to face the situation unitedly without the US. Thrown into the lurch, Zelenskyy is likely to be a scapegoat for a deal with Russia. Since Trump has already called him a dictator for continuing in office without an election, Russia may also demand his exit to turn future negotiations in its favour.

Such developments are not new in politics. Many countries have lost their identities in wars. During the Second World War, parts of Czechoslovakia were surrendered to Adolf Hitler in Munich in 1939. Now, what course would be taken while settling the Ukraine-Russia war remains to be seen. The US, which claims itself a sole superpower, has already lost its balance by taking sides with Russia. Its European allies are dismayed by Trump’s phenomenon despite the contrary position they adopted in favour of Ukraine.

The Ukraine case has numerous messages for countries becoming parasites on others. Compared to many countries, Ukraine has the potential and resources to face any external aggression and pressure to a certain point. But smaller and weaker countries have all sorts of existential threats to survival. For weaker countries like Nepal, developing their survival instinct and capacity by utilising internal resources and enhancing capabilities through government efficiency would be significant. This can be achieved if the countries free themselves from rampant corruption, poor governmental performance and the inaction of the political elite.

Nepal’s position is relatively not as bad as dissatisfied people try to draw. In any liberal order, some groups with vested interests try to take advantage of the situation. Nevertheless, the general public expects something, as it is not just the system that needs to be changed but also the condition of people. Nepalis who hope for the end of the republic are seemingly encouraged by the government’s weakness. Is monarchy indeed better than a republic? For me, a republican democracy is one hundred percent better than a traditional monarchy. What did Gyanendra Shah or his predecessors do other than suppress the people for their vested interests?