7th November 2026
Political leaders around the world are discovering that winning an election and taking office does not guarantee that they will remain in power. From mass protests and parliamentary impeachments to military coups and foreign intervention, a growing number of governments are facing challenges that would have been difficult to imagine only a few years ago.
The circumstances vary considerably, but there is a common thread. Public patience with political leadership appears to be wearing thin, particularly where people believe that corruption, economic mismanagement and political privilege have become more important to those in power than the needs of ordinary citizens.
The latest example is Paraguay, where President Santiago Peña was removed from office on 6 November 2026 following a banking crisis that left millions of people unable to access their money.
But Paraguay is only one part of a much wider international picture.
A growing list of political casualties
Several countries have experienced dramatic changes in leadership in recent years.
In Bangladesh, Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina fled the country in August 2024 following weeks of student-led demonstrations that developed into a mass uprising. Anger over government policies, corruption and the treatment of political opponents had been building for years.
South Korea experienced a very different kind of crisis. President Yoon Suk Yeol was removed from office in April 2025 after the Constitutional Court upheld his impeachment following his extraordinary attempt to impose martial law. The country's democratic institutions ultimately prevented the president from retaining power through an unconstitutional move.
In Nepal, Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli resigned in September 2025 after youth-led demonstrations over corruption, nepotism and restrictions on social media developed into violent unrest.
Madagascar experienced another form of political upheaval in October 2025. President Andry Rajoelina was forced from power following protests over electricity and water shortages, corruption and poor public services. The military subsequently took control.
Peru has also experienced considerable political instability. President Dina Boluarte was impeached and removed in October 2025, with her successor José Jerí himself losing office in February 2026.
These examples demonstrate that the removal of political leaders is not confined to one continent, political ideology or particular type of government.
However, it is important to distinguish between democratic institutions removing a leader and a military or foreign power forcing one out. They may produce the same immediate result, but their implications for democracy are very different.
Paraguay: When a banking crisis becomes a political crisis
The events in Paraguay provide a particularly striking example of how quickly public confidence can collapse.
The country's digital lender, Ueno Bank, grew rapidly and attracted millions of customers. It also held substantial public-sector and pension-related funds.
When regulators intervened following concerns about the bank's financial position and lending practices, customers found themselves unable to access their accounts. The disruption affected a very large proportion of the population and created widespread anger.
Attention quickly turned towards the political connections surrounding the bank.
President Santiago Peña had previously held an interest in the bank's parent company, while the former head of Ueno had subsequently become central bank governor. Questions were raised about potential conflicts of interest, regulatory oversight and the handling of public money.
Peña denied wrongdoing, but the political consequences were severe. He initially resigned, but parliament proceeded with impeachment. On 6 November, the Senate voted overwhelmingly to remove him. Vice-President Pedro Alliana was sworn in as his replacement.
The former president was subsequently placed under house arrest while investigations continued.
The episode demonstrates how a financial failure can become a much wider crisis of confidence when people suspect that political connections have protected powerful interests while ordinary savers bear the consequences.
Venezuela: A president removed by a foreign power
Perhaps the most extraordinary example is Venezuela.
On 3 January 2026, American forces carried out a military operation in Caracas and captured President Nicolás Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores. They were transported to the United States to face criminal charges relating to drug trafficking and weapons offences, which they deny.
Maduro had been in power since 2013, following the death of Hugo Chávez. His government had become increasingly authoritarian, with serious allegations of electoral manipulation, repression of political opponents and economic mismanagement.
The 2024 presidential election was a major turning point. The opposition produced voting records indicating that its candidate, Edmundo González, had won, but Maduro's government declared itself victorious and remained in power.
The United States had already refused to recognise Maduro as the legitimate winner. However, capturing a sitting president through a foreign military operation was an entirely different matter.
Vice-President Delcy Rodríguez became interim president following his removal.
The question now is whether Venezuela will move towards genuine democracy or simply replace one leader while retaining much of the political establishment that supported him.
Has Venezuela actually changed?
There have been some developments since Maduro's removal.
Political prisoners have been released, an amnesty law has been introduced and discussions have begun between the interim government and sections of the opposition. Some restrictions on news websites have also been relaxed.
However, human rights organisations report that hundreds of political prisoners remain in detention. Restrictions on political activity and freedom of expression continue, while many officials associated with the previous administration remain in influential positions.
Opposition leader María Corina Machado and former presidential candidate Edmundo González have continued to demand a genuine democratic transition.
The United States has also established a much closer relationship with the Rodríguez government. Diplomatic relations have been restored and agreements have been reached giving American interests preferential access to Venezuelan oil resources.
This raises questions about Washington's priorities.
The United States says it wants political stability, economic recovery and eventually democratic elections. Yet Venezuela also possesses some of the world's largest proven oil reserves, making it strategically and commercially important.
It is reasonable to ask whether the removal of Maduro was primarily about democracy, security, oil or a combination of all three.
There is also a serious international law question. If a powerful country can use military force to capture another country's president, what prevents other powerful nations from claiming similar authority?
Russia and China will certainly be watching the international reaction. The principle of national sovereignty cannot sensibly depend on which country is carrying out the intervention.
Why are governments becoming so vulnerable?
There are several explanations, and they often overlap.
The first is the cost of living. Food, fuel, housing and electricity costs have become increasingly important political issues. Governments can publish impressive economic growth figures, but those figures mean little to households struggling to pay bills.
The second is corruption. People are increasingly unwilling to accept political systems in which powerful individuals appear to enjoy privileges unavailable to everyone else. The perception that politicians protect their own interests can be particularly damaging when public services are failing.
The third is generational change. Younger people in countries such as Bangladesh and Nepal are increasingly willing to challenge established political structures. Social media allows protests to develop rapidly, connecting people who might previously have felt isolated or powerless.
The fourth is the weakening of political institutions. In some countries, parliaments and courts are capable of holding leaders accountable. In others, institutions have been undermined, leaving military intervention or street protests as the only apparent routes to political change.
Finally, there is a growing problem of trust. Politicians may win elections on promises of reform, but when those promises are not delivered, public frustration can quickly turn into demands for their removal.
Is democracy strengthening or weakening?
There is an important distinction between removing a leader through constitutional procedures and overthrowing a government by force.
South Korea provides an example of democratic institutions working as intended. Its courts and parliament were able to prevent a president from retaining power after an attempt to impose martial law.
Paraguay's impeachment also demonstrates the ability of parliamentary institutions to remove a leader, although the political consequences and the investigations into the banking crisis are far from settled.
By contrast, military coups in countries such as Madagascar and Guinea-Bissau raise serious questions about whether democratic government is being replaced by another form of authoritarian rule.
Venezuela presents an even more complicated case because the intervention came from outside the country.
Removing an unpopular or authoritarian leader does not automatically create a functioning democracy. It requires independent courts, credible elections, a free press, accountable security forces and political institutions that can survive changes of leadership.
Without these safeguards, one powerful individual can simply be replaced by another.
What should Britain and America learn?
Britain has a different political system from most of the countries discussed here. A prime minister can be replaced by their own party or lose a parliamentary confidence vote without necessarily triggering a military or constitutional crisis.
The United States has stronger formal protections surrounding presidential removal, although its political divisions and disputes over the authority of its institutions have become increasingly concerning.
Both countries should nevertheless recognise that public confidence is an essential part of political stability.
People expect governments to address everyday problems, provide reliable public services, maintain economic security and demonstrate that the rules apply equally to those in power.
There is a lesson here for established democracies as well as countries experiencing political upheaval.
Removing a leader is easier than fixing a country
The international picture is not simply one of unpopular politicians losing their jobs. It reflects a deeper challenge to political authority.
Voters, protesters, courts, parliaments, militaries and even foreign governments are increasingly involved in determining who remains in power.
Some of these changes represent democracy defending itself. Others represent a dangerous breakdown of democratic principles.
The real test comes afterwards.
Bangladesh, Nepal, Peru, Madagascar, Paraguay and Venezuela all face the difficult task of rebuilding confidence in their political systems. Changing the person at the top may satisfy public anger temporarily, but it does not automatically solve unemployment, corruption, economic insecurity or failing public services.
Perhaps the most important warning for politicians everywhere is that political authority cannot be sustained indefinitely by promises, slogans or control of institutions.
Ultimately, governments depend on public confidence. Once that confidence disappears, even leaders who appear firmly established can discover that their time in office is running out.