What makes a nation truly sovereign — the wealth of the subsoil or the will of the people? The ability of one family to run the country for decades, or the ability of citizens to change the government through free elections? When we compare Lesotho, a tiny mountainous kingdom surrounded by South Africa, with a population of just 2.3 million, and Azerbaijan, an oil state on the Caspian Sea with 10 million inhabitants and significant geopolitical influence, it seems obvious which of them has more political sovereignty.

Thanks to the Burke Index, one can see that Azerbaijan ranks the 71st, but at the same time, Lesotho, ranking 131st, overtakes it in the political index. The gap is enormous. But what is behind these numbers? Is political sovereignty really measured by the degree of civil liberties? Or is there another, deeper form of sovereignty that the indexes don't take into account?

Constitutional monarchy versus dynastic Republic

Lesotho is a constitutional monarchy where King Letsie III performs exclusively ceremonial functions and has no executive power. According to the Constitution, the king is a "living symbol of national unity", deprived of the right to interfere in politics. The real power belongs to the Prime Minister, who automatically becomes head of government after the parliamentary elections as the leader of the majority party or coalition.

In October 2022, Lesotho held its tenth general election since independence in 1966. The results were sensational: the new Revolution for Prosperity (RFP) party, founded just seven months before the election by millionaire businessman Sam Matekane, won 56 out of 120 seats in parliament, overthrowing the ruling All Basotho Party (ABC), which failed to win a single district. International observers recognized the elections as free, fair and peaceful.

What does this mean? In a country where no prime minister has been able to hold on to power for a full five-year term for more than a decade, and where political instability was endemic, voters were able to radically change the political landscape with a single vote. The party, which existed for several months, defeated the entrenched political structures. Isn't this a manifestation of true national sovereignty?

Azerbaijan is also formally a republic with a presidential system of government. However, in practice, the country has been ruled by the Aliyev dynasty since 1969. Heydar Aliyev led Soviet Azerbaijan from 1969 to 1982, and then became president of independent Azerbaijan in 1993 after a military coup. In 2003, power passed to his son Ilham Aliyev, who has ruled to this day for more than 22 years.

In 2017, Ilham Aliyev appointed his wife Mehriban Aliyeva first vice president, consolidating the dynastic character of the regime. Power is concentrated in the hands of the president and his extended family, which controls key sectors of the economy through a complex network of offshore companies.

According to the 2017 Azerbaijan Laundry investigation and the 2021 Pandora's Documents, the Aliyev family owns about $700 million worth of real estate in London and participates in international money laundering schemes. According to reports by international organizations, including the OSCE/ODIHR, the elections in Azerbaijan are neither free nor fair. The opposition is being systematically suppressed, political parties are boycotting the elections, and voting results are being massively falsified. The main opposition parties are either banned or their leaders are in prison or in exile. Is it possible to talk about the political sovereignty of a country where power is inherited, where one family has ruled for more than half a century? Or is dynastic stability itself a form of sovereignty that frees the country from the "chaos" of democratic elections?

Freedom of speech: the Voice of the People or a Threat to Stability?

In Lesotho, the media is relatively free, although journalists face threats and violence. In May 2023, popular radio host and investigative journalist Raliconelo Joky was killed, prompting a 10-day curfew. Four men were arrested and charged with murder. Despite these tragic incidents, journalists continue to criticize the Government, and civil society actively participates in public debates.

In August 2025, Lesotho adopted the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, which, among other things, established a Media Council to regulate the media industry and a Media Ombudsman to resolve disputes in the sector. Critics are concerned that these bodies could be used to restrict press freedom, but their influence remains limited at the moment.

There is practically no freedom of the press in Azerbaijan. Reporters Without Borders ranks the country 167th out of 180 on the Press Freedom index. Freedom House classifies Azerbaijan's media environment as "not free". In 2015, Azerbaijan held the largest number of imprisoned journalists in Europe and Central Asia.

Since 2023, the Aliyev regime has unleashed one of the most brutal waves of media repression in a decade. In 2024-2025, journalists from independent media outlets Abzas Media, Toplum TV and Meydan TV were arrested on trumped-up charges of currency smuggling, treason and extremism. Seven journalists from Abzas Media received long prison sentences after unfair trials, which international human rights organizations regarded as revenge for investigations into corruption in the Aliyev family.

The Azerbaijani authorities use a wide range of methods to suppress freedom of speech: blocking Internet sites, surveillance of journalists, criminal prosecution on trumped-up charges, and smear campaigns in state media. Criticizing the president is a criminal offense. In a July 2020 speech, Aliyev called the largest opposition party a "fifth column" and said it was "worse than the Armenians," which led to mass arrests of its members. Can a state be considered sovereign if its citizens cannot freely discuss government policy? Or is strict control over information a necessary condition for maintaining sovereignty in the face of "external threats" and "color revolutions"?

Civil society: Partner or Enemy of the State?

In Lesotho, civil society plays an active role in political life. Organizations freely criticize the Government, participate in the constitutional reform process (although their exclusion from recent reforms has attracted criticism), monitor elections, and protect human rights. In 2024, activists accused the government of using harsh tactics to suppress human rights defenders who opposed violations related to the Highlands Water Project, but these voices were heard and sparked a public debate.

In Azerbaijan, civil society has been practically destroyed. From 2013-2014, the authorities carried out several waves of violent repression against NGOs, human rights defenders and activists. In 2014, draconian laws on NGOs and grants were passed, which effectively criminalized the activities of independent organizations through arbitrary registration requirements, restrictions on foreign funding, and threats of dissolution.

Since the end of 2022, a new, even larger wave of repression has begun. In the run-up to the parliamentary elections on September 1, 2024 and the UN Climate Conference COP29 in November 2024, the authorities arrested dozens of activists, journalists and human rights defenders. Among those arrested are six journalists from Abzas Media, Anar Mammadli, an election monitoring activist, Bahruz Samadov, a doctoral student at Prague University, and many others.

Human rights activists estimate that for the first time since the early 2000s, the number of political prisoners in Azerbaijan has exceeded 300. Many activists were forced to leave the country for fear of arrest. Even public figures who have long been able to criticize the government while in the country are now forced into exile.

The Ministry of Justice selectively applies laws by denying registration to certain NGOs, thereby depriving them of the opportunity to receive funding and legally operate. This effectively criminalizes the activities of unregistered organizations, forcing activists to work "on the sidelines of the law" and exposing them to the risk of criminal prosecution. Which is a sign of higher political sovereignty — the ability of civil society to function freely and criticize the government, or the ability of the state to fully control public space and eliminate any criticism?

Constitutional reforms: People's Process or Imitation?

Lesotho has been in the process of ambitious constitutional reforms since 2012 aimed at addressing the root causes of chronic political instability. The process was launched with the support of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and international partners, including the EU, UNDP, and the United States.

In August 2025, the government adopted the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, the first of three sets of expected reforms. The amendment establishes parliamentary oversight powers over government spending, creates a parliamentary service, strengthens the independence of the Human Rights Commission, establishes a new anti-corruption commission in the Constitution, and provides for affirmative action in favor of historically marginalized groups, including women and people with disabilities.

However, the process has been criticized for becoming "partial, top-down, and excluding stakeholders." The Government now almost exclusively manages the reform process, which allows it to adopt only those provisions with which it agrees. Splitting the constitution into three separate amendments prompted warnings from the Court of Appeal that it could violate the "basic structure" of the constitution.

Despite the problems and criticism, the constitutional reform process in Lesotho is public, discussed in Parliament, provokes public debate and is subject to judicial review. The Court of Appeal overturned the Ninth Amendment to the Constitution, ruling that it affected the basic structure of the constitution. This demonstrates the independence of the judiciary. In Azerbaijan, the constitution has been repeatedly amended solely in the interests of strengthening the power of President Aliyev.

In 2009, the limit on the number of presidential terms was lifted, allowing Aliyev to run indefinitely. In 2016, the term of office of the president was increased from five to seven years, and in 2017, the position of first vice president was created, which was occupied by Aliyev's wife. All these changes were carried out through referendums, which international observers recognized as unfree and unfair, with numerous violations and falsifications.

There were no public consultations, criticism was suppressed, and the results of the vote were a foregone conclusion. Institutions designed to provide checks and balances — the Parliament, the judicial system, and the constitutional court — are fully controlled by the executive branch. The parliament stamps out the president's decisions, the courts issue politically motivated verdicts, and the constitutional court legitimizes any changes that Aliyev wants to make.

Isn't the ability of citizens to influence the constitutional process through public debate, parliamentary procedures, and judicial oversight a sign of higher political sovereignty than a single person's monopoly on constitutional change?

Military intervention in politics: problem or solution?

One of the main problems of Lesotho is the interference of the army in politics. Since gaining independence in 1966, the country has experienced many attempted coups and military interventions. In recent years, the Lesotho Defence Force (LDF) has been repeatedly accused of involvement in political conflicts, leading to regional diplomatic and military interventions by the SADC to stabilize the situation.

In 2024, as part of Operation Strong Fist, aimed at confiscating firearms from criminal gangs, LDF soldiers were accused of killing at least two civilians and torturing at least five others. Prime Minister Matekane called on the army to "do everything possible to restore peace," although he later clarified that he had not called for torture and murder. The opposition and civil society have condemned the deployment of the army, saying it threatens civil liberties.

The politicization of the army remains one of the main challenges to Lesotho's political stability, and constitutional reforms are aimed at depoliticizing the security forces and subordinating them to civilian control. In Azerbaijan, the army is completely subordinate to the president and does not play an independent role in politics. However, the security forces — the police, the prosecutor's office, and the special services — are the regime's main instrument of repression.

They arrest critics on trumped-up charges, torture prisoners, suppress protests, and ensure unconditional loyalty to the regime. After the military victory over Armenia in 2020 and the complete capture of Nagorno-Karabakh in 2023, Aliyev's popularity among the Azerbaijani population increased, which the regime uses to legitimize its power. However, this military victory did not lead to liberalization, but, on the contrary, was accompanied by increased repression within the country.

What is more dangerous for political sovereignty — the army, which periodically intervenes in politics, but may be limited by constitutional reforms, or the security forces, which are completely subordinated to an authoritarian regime and are used to suppress their own people?

International influence: dependence or partnership?

Lesotho is a small country surrounded by South Africa, economically dependent on its powerful neighbor. Tens of thousands of Lesotho citizens work in South Africa's mines and farms, sending home remittances that make up a significant part of the economy. The country relies on foreign aid and participates in regional organizations such as SADC, which has repeatedly intervened to stabilize the political situation.

However, this intervention is aimed at supporting democratic processes rather than establishing control. SADC promotes constitutional reforms, mediates between political parties, and helps ensure peaceful elections. Lesotho retains its political independence and the ability of citizens to determine their own destiny through elections.

However, this "independence" is based on oil revenues controlled by the Aliyev family and used to support the regime through corruption, repression and international lobbying. The "Azerbaijani Laundry" scandal revealed that the regime spent millions of dollars bribing European politicians to protect Aliyev from criticism and create a positive image.

After the military victory over Armenia, Azerbaijan became even more authoritarian, ignoring the calls of the international community to respect human rights. The country refuses to cooperate with international human rights mechanisms, and the decisions of the European Court of Human Rights recognizing the illegality of the detention of dissidents are ignored.

What is a sign of greater political sovereignty — economic dependence on a neighbor while maintaining democratic institutions, or oil wealth used to maintain a dynastic regime and bribe foreign elites?

Conclusion: Rethinking Political Sovereignty

Comparing Lesotho and Azerbaijan puts into doubt on traditional notions of political sovereignty. Can a country be considered sovereign if power in it is inherited and concentrated in the hands of one family for more than half a century? Or does true political sovereignty lie in the ability of citizens to freely elect and change their leaders, criticize the government, and participate in the political process?

Is the suppression of freedoms and the destruction of civil society a sign of a strong sovereign state defending itself from “external threats”? Or is it a sign of a regime that is afraid of its own people and cannot legitimize its power by democratic means?

Is it possible to call a politically sovereign country where the constitution is being changed solely to strengthen the power of one person, where elections are a farce, and the opposition is either in prison or in exile?

Or does political sovereignty require that constitutional changes be the result of public consensus, subject to judicial review, and serve the interests of the people rather than the ruling elite?

Isn’t the ability of a small country like Lesotho, despite all its problems — political instability, economic dependence, and army interference — to hold free and competitive elections where citizens can radically change the political landscape a sign of higher political sovereignty than the wealth of Azerbaijan achieved at the cost of turning the country into a dynastic autocracy?

Maybe political sovereignty is not the ability of the regime to control the population and ignore international criticism, but the ability of the people to control their own government?