Features

The Delcy Doctrine

Published

3 months ago

2026/04/26

Delcy Rodríguez

Real politics is always played in grey areas; decisions are not made in parliamentary chambers or presidential palaces but in hotel corridors, private aircraft, and the quiet geometry of negotiated survival. What is presented as constitutional order is often only the visible skin of a deeper machinery where power is not declared but assembled. Most commentary on Venezuela portrays the removal of Nicolás Maduro as a sudden rupture that dismantled an entrenched centre of authority and rapidly produced a new governing nucleus around Delcy Rodríguez, reframing the state not as continuity but as immediate reconfiguration under a new operational centre of power.

The claim is simple in outline and explosive in implication: Maduro removed, detained abroad, his political inner circle dismantled; Rodríguez elevated from vice-presidential operator to acting head of state, inheriting not a ceremonial vacancy but a fractured state requiring immediate recomposition. Whether one treats this as confirmed fact, speculative journalism, or a constructed political scenario, the effect is the same in analytical terms. It produces a vacuum, and in politics vacuums are never empty. They are filled immediately, often brutally, and almost always by those closest to the mechanisms of control rather than the symbols of legitimacy.

Rodríguez, in this framing, is not behaving like a transitional leader waiting for instructions. She is behaving like an administrator of consolidation. Her public language repeatedly returns to a controlled moral vocabulary: Venezuela, she insists, is “forging a path of national reunification”, “free from the divisions of classism and racism”, and rooted “in the pursuit of peace.” It is a carefully constructed grammar of stabilisation. Nothing in it is accidental. Reunification replaces rupture. Peace replaces conflict. Inclusion replaces accusation. It is the language of systems attempting to re-legitimise themselves after fracture.

Yet language in moments like this does not describe reality so much as attempt to discipline it. Every invocation of unity implies prior fragmentation. Every appeal to peace implies a preceding logic of coercion. What is being built is not only a political order but an interpretive frame in which that order can survive scrutiny.

Reports associated with this narrative describe rapid administrative restructuring: ministerial changes, security realignments, and renewed engagement with global financial institutions, including the International Monetary Fund. The return of financial dialogue after years of rupture is framed as a restoration of economic normality, yet it also functions as something more fundamental: conditional recognition. Access to financial systems is never neutral. It is a form of admission into an international order that confers legitimacy as much as liquidity.

A frequently cited poll attributed to this period places Rodríguez at 73 per cent approval among Venezuelans. Whether statistically rigorous or politically constructed, the number itself performs a different function. It stabilises perception. In transitional environments, polling is rarely about measurement alone; it is about producing the sensation of consensus in moments where consensus is structurally fragile. Numbers become instruments of narrative control rather than reflections of social reality.

What emerges across these accounts is a dual reading of Rodríguez’s role. For supporters, she is the stabiliser of a collapsing system, the figure capable of converting disorder into administrative continuity. For critics, she is the executor of elite reconfiguration, replacing one closed network with another while maintaining the architecture of concentrated power. Both readings contain truth, not because they agree, but because transitional power almost always generates contradictory interpretations of the same actions.

The deeper logic resembles a familiar political pattern: when central authority collapses, the question is not who is most legitimate but who is most capable of controlling institutions that actually matter. Security structures, financial channels, energy infrastructure, and diplomatic access become the real terrain of power. Ideology becomes secondary to control of operational systems. In that sense, Rodríguez is not an anomaly but a product of a very old political problem: how to maintain state coherence when legitimacy is contested and authority has been disrupted.

There is a long historical memory for this kind of moment. Rome did not end its republic through a single act but through incremental consolidation, where Augustus transformed emergency authority into a permanent structure while preserving republican language. Power changed form without changing vocabulary. In post-revolutionary France, figures like Talleyrand survived every ideological shift by treating loyalty as subordinate to institutional survival. The pattern is not moral; it is structural. Systems under stress reward adaptability over conviction.

The uncomfortable implication is that such transitions rarely offer clean moral categories. The language of betrayal and loyalty becomes unstable when applied to environments where institutional survival itself depends on the reconfiguration of alliances. What appears as betrayal from one perspective can appear as necessity from another. Politics in such contexts is not a question of ethical clarity but of functional continuity under pressure.

Even the symbolic inheritance of Chávez-era rhetoric complicates interpretation. His denunciation of Western power as “the devil” once represented ideological confrontation with global systems of influence. In the current configuration of events, however, the same state tradition appears to be engaging selectively with those same systems through financial reintegration and diplomatic recalibration. The contradiction is not unique to Venezuela; it is a recurring feature of states that move from confrontation to survival pragmatism. Ideological purity rarely survives institutional stress.

Rodríguez, within this contested framing, operates at the intersection of these contradictions. She is simultaneously presented as guardian of sovereignty and manager of reintegration into the Western financial structures. She speaks in the language of resistance while engaging in the mechanics of external normalisation. That duality is not incoherence; it is the condition of governance under constraint, where no single ideological position can fully account for the demands of survival.

It is tempting to describe this as either redemption or capture, but both interpretations flatten the reality of transitional authority. What exists instead is a corridor of constrained decision-making, where every action is shaped by pressure from multiple directions: internal fragmentation, external expectation, institutional inertia. Within that corridor, politics becomes less about declaring direction and more about preventing collapse.

This is why the figure of Rodríguez generates such divergent readings. She is not operating in a stable system where legitimacy is settled. She is operating in a system where legitimacy itself is part of the struggle. Every reform is also a negotiation. Every consolidation is also a risk. Every gesture of unity is also an act of exclusion somewhere else in the structure.

The deeper political lesson is that modern state transitions rarely resemble the narratives used to describe them. They are not clean breaks or linear progressions. They are layered adjustments in which old structures are partially dismantled, partially preserved, and partially repurposed. The result is not resolution but managed ambiguity.

In that sense, Rodríguez is not an exception but an expression of a broader political condition: the necessity of governing through instability rather than after it. Whether one interprets that as betrayal or transformation depends less on evidence than on political positioning. The structure itself does not resolve the ambiguity; it produces it. The irony is that political systems often attempt to justify themselves through historical memory while simultaneously repeating its most uncomfortable patterns. When power changes hands, justice changes meaning. As the old saying goes, in politics, loyalty is a currency that devalues quickly.

by Nilantha Ilangamuwa

All News Advertisement

Features

The hard challenge of clinching a political settlement in the Middle East

Published

14 hours ago

2026/07/23

Sahan Weerasooriya

Bruised hearts: Displaced Palestinian civilians in the Gaza.(Photo by Mustafa Hassona/Anadolu via Getty Images)

Despite some sections of the Trump administration persisting with the view that the possibility could not be entirely ruled out of there being a diplomatic solution to the current US-Iran hostilities in West Asia, the skeptic could not be blamed for thinking otherwise. The intensity, scale and frequency of the tit-for-tat strikes by the antagonists over the past few days against selected military targets and civilian infrastructure in particular in West Asia make the adoption of this stance excusable.

The continuing hostilities render the mentioning of the MOU signed between the warring parties in mid-June a laughable matter. While it could very well be that the foes are wishing privately for a cessation of hostilities before long, what seems to be uppermost on their minds right now is to negotiate with each other from a position of strength. This strategy compels them to incapacitate each other militarily to the extent possible, lest they have to concede too much to each other during negotiations. Hence the stepped-up hostilities.

However, even on the question of there being a negotiated political settlement in the West Asian theatre in the longer term, the skeptic could come to be seen as scoring over the optimist. Developments on the ground account for this.

At the time of writing Israel’s Netanyahu government is going ahead in fairly care-free fashion with the establishment of more Jewish settlements in the Gaza and the West Bank, and it’s all happening under the apparently complacent gaze of the US. In fact, some quarters estimate that Israel is in control of some 65% of the Gaza Strip. Ethnic cleansing, that is, is being drastically stepped-up.

Accordingly, in terms of the power relations of West Asia, the world is almost back to the status quo of the late forties of the last century when the state of Israel was established and the Palestinians were reduced to a microscopic minority in the land they came to inhabit. Therefore, even the impartial observer would be compelled to ask: ‘Will a negotiated peace be ever possible in the Middle East?’

The humanist in the observer would prefer to answer this question in the affirmative and it is indeed the ideal stance to adopt considering the staggering human and material costs of the conflict. But the way ahead to peace could be expected to be highly hazardous and arduous. Among other odds, it would also prove an uphill endeavour to win minds and hearts.

The US’ Trump administration would need to be counted out in this pursuit. This is on account of the fact that it has been far too wayward in its management of West Asian affairs in particular over the past couple of years. Given its unpredictable character it is a matter for conjecture whether it could be counted on to live up to its commitments.

Moreover, Israel could be expected to ‘go it alone’ in the Middle East regardless of whether US help is coming or otherwise. It has indicated as much in recent times and Israel could be doubted on this score only at the doubter’s peril. Because time and again Israel has demonstrated that it could steadfastly defend its interests even single-handedly in the Middle East. History bears this out.

However, a durable alliance with the US would stand Israel in good stead. On the matter of military and intelligence assistance, for example, the US’s help proved invaluable for Israel in the past and going forward this is bound to be so as well. Moreover, it is unlikely that the Trump administration would give up on Israel, considering that a strong Israel is crucial for the furtherance of the US’ strategic and economic interests in West Asia.

But whether the above factors would have a considerable bearing on the question of working out a durable solution to the West Asian tangle is an entirely different matter. Israel, as in the case of the Palestinian enclaves, is acutely security conscious and would need to satisfy itself fully that it could live in a security environment that would guarantee its complete safety, going forward.

The Middle East is badly in need of another peace effort on the lines of the Oslo Accords of the mid-nineties that brought the key actors together and helped hammer out a solution that addressed some of their notable concerns. To be sure, that process did not prove to be the ideal answer to the tangle, but it yielded some respite to the region and drove home that one-time sworn foes could indeed negotiate with a degree of success. The West Bank authority, although falling short of fulfilling some key Palestinian aspirations, is testimony that a degree of success is possible if the intent is right.

Given the current realities of West Asia, peace-making is bound to be an uphill challenge. The violence faced in recent times by the Palestinian community, in particular, has been nothing less than mind-numbing. Merciless has been the violence visited on them by the Israeli side. In such circumstances, durable peace in the region could smack of an idealist’s dream.

Nevertheless, there needs to be urgently, a meeting of minds over the divides. The US would need to be counted out as an honest broker in bringing the sides together but the rest of the West would do well to step up to the challenge.

In this exercise the onus would be on the world’s democracies to take the initiative and doggedly stay the course. An acceptable combination would be the EU and the UN. Given their credentials, the main sides in West Asia ought to find them the least controversial.

Even if the relevant institutional and political arrangements could be shored up to take a reconciliation process forward, winning hearts and minds for the peace drive would prove a grueling challenge. Over the past few years in particular tens of thousands of hearts and minds on both sides of the divide have been bruised badly in the runaway murderous violence that has come to define the Middle East.

These badly scarred personalities would need to experience healing without much delay. It is therefore a multi-faceted challenge that is at hand. Since wide-ranging expertise would be needed in the healing process, people’s participation in peace-making, ranging over the divides, would need to be made a durable reality. It will be a time for enthroning humanity and ensuring the rejection of all forms of violence and coercion.

Features

Amazing Thailand …right here in Colombo

Published

14 hours ago

2026/07/23

Sahan Weerasooriya

For many Sri Lankans, Thailand is the go-to holiday — beaches, temples, food, and that famous warm hospitality.

In fact, I’ve been to Amazing Thailand 24 times myself, and was honoured with the Friends of Thailand International Media Award by the Tourism Authority of Thailand for promoting Thai tourism.

The good news I have for you today is that you don’t even need a passport to get a taste of Amazing Thailand.

The Royal Thai Embassy, in Colombo, is bringing a vibrant slice of Thailand, to the city of Colombo, with Thai Festival 2026 — a cultural experience like never before.

Whether you are an avid enthusiast of Thai culture, a total novice, or simply just interested in exploring foreign cultures, Thai Festival 2026 is going to be the perfect opportunity for you to get more than just a glimpse into one of the most celebrated cultural heritages in South East Asia. And ENTRANCE IS FREE.

The festival will be held on the 1st and 2nd of August, 2026, at Siam Nivasa, 43, C.W.W. Kannangara Mawatha, Colombo 7, and the East Parking Area, of the Colombo Municipal Council, from 11:00am to 5:00pm.

Both days will be full of live entertainment, and dispersed throughout with Thai cultural displays, including exhilarating traditional dance performances and breathtaking Muay Thai demonstrations.

Exploring art and craft specific to Thailand, tasting irresistible authentic Thai cuisine, and playing arcade games, are just a few more fun-filled events available for visitors at the festival premises.

An array of Thai products will also be available for purchase.

While at the festival, you will find Sri Lankan Alumni from Thai universities sharing their experiences with you and willing to answer any questions you might have, related to studying abroad in Thailand.

You can also register for the Muay Thai workshop that will be happening on the 7th and 8th of August, 2026, in Colombo.

Irresistible authentic Thai cuisine

Visitors can also stand a chance to win traditional Thai souvenirs, get exclusive photo opportunities, and, the big one — to enter the raffle draw, at the end of each day, for the grand prize of an all-inclusive round trip to Thailand.

Be sure to avail yourself of this exceptional opportunity and add a cultural spin to your weekend.

To keep up with the latest updates on Thai Festival 2026, head over to the Thai Festival official social media pages.

The Royal Thai Embassy in Colombo official webpage:

https://colombo.thaiembassy.org

Official social media:

Facebook: @RTEColombo

Instagram: @thaiembassysrilanka

Thai Festival official social media:

Facebook: Thai Festival in Colombo

Instagram: @thaifestival_colombo

TikTok: @thaifestival.incolombo

Features

Thicker, stronger hair …

Published

14 hours ago

2026/07/23

Sahan Weerasooriya

Hair fall, in this heat, can be so frustrating, and noticing a thin patch is even more worrying. The good news is … yes, with a little care and kitchen ingredients, you can nourish your scalp and support healthy regrowth.

Try these four easy home remedies … even our grandmothers trusted:

* Coconut Oil and Curry Leaves Tonic:

Warm 04 tablespoons of coconut oil, with a handful of curry leaves, till the leaves turn black. Cool, strain, and massage into scalp 02-03 times a week. Leave for 01 hour, or overnight.

Why:

Coconut oil deeply nourishes, while curry leaves help strengthen roots and add shine.

* Onion Juice for Spot Treatment:

With cotton, dab the juice of 01 small onion, directly on the thin/bald patches. Leave for 20-30 minutes, and then wash with a mild shampoo. Use twice a week.

Why:

Rich in sulfur, onion juice helps boost blood circulation to the scalp.

* Aloe Vera and Castor Oil Mask:

Mix 02 tablespoons of fresh aloe vera gel and 01 tablespoon castor oil and apply to the scalp, focusing on thinning areas. Leave for 45 minutes, and then rinse with cool water.

Why:

Aloe vera soothes the scalp, while castor oil coats hair to make it look thicker.

* Fenugreek and Curd Strengthening Pack:

You will need 02 tablespoons fenugreek seeds, soaked overnight, and 02 tablespoons plain curd.

Grind to a paste, apply to scalp for 30 minutes, and then wash.

Why:

Fenugreek strengthens strands and reduces breakage.

Extra Tips for Healthy Hair:

Avoid tight hairstyles that pull on the scalp.

Eat iron and protein rich foods: greens, dhal, eggs, fish.

Use lukewarm water, not hot.

Be gentle when brushing and drying.