When Nayib Bukele was sworn in as president of El Salvador on June 1, 2019, he knew he had a huge burden. He became a leader of a nation struggling with poverty and extreme gang violence. Of course, Bukele did not come into this position unprepared. He is prepared to continue tackling corruption and stabilizing the economy, a mission he began as a mayor of San Salvador, El Salvador’s capital, where he stood behind many urban development projects. His campaign was also unique and promising. Instead of engaging in traditional presidential debates and going on tours around the country, he chose to use social media like Facebook and Twitter to reach as many people as possible. Indeed, this approach gave him a large platform, making him the first president in the last 30 years to not come from one of the two parties associated with the civil war that occurred during the 1980s. No other president since the turbulent era of the civil war has had such an overwhelming majority in the polls; Bukele reached 53 percent. Bukele’s populist campaign, overwhelming public support, and belief that every citizen of El Salvador deserved security, parks, and a reliable income sounded like a dream come true to many individuals. More importantly, Bukele has been able to follow through on most of his promises by making a robust anti-corruption body, mercilessly combating the violence and horror brought by gangs, and strengthening ties with the United States (U.S.) and the Organization of American States (OAS). However, all of this was done through very firm, authoritarian-esque actions, which, though they seem to come from the best intentions, may easily push El Salvador into yet another dictatorial era.
Corruption is one of the strongest underlying issues within the Salvadoran government. There is a lengthy list of past presidents accused of corruption, with notable examples including Elias Antonio Saca who, as Al Jazeera observes, is still jailed serving a 10-year sentence for corruption, as well as an additional two years due to bribery during his court proceedings. Furthermore, Mauricio Funes, his successor, is in exile in Nicaragua due to corruption charges, which proves that El Salvador has faced substantial governance issues. As Bukele himself noted, things cannot get much worse, and striking down the ridiculous corruption levels must be a priority. Interestingly, Bukele has already involved the OAS in his effort to combat corruption in El Salvador. As the Americas Society/Council of the Americas explains, the executive branch of the Salvadoran government, in partnership with OAS, created the International Commission against Corruption and Impunity in El Salvador (CICIES), which will operate in a similar manner to bodies in both Honduras and Nicaragua and aims to include international efforts to stop corruption within the highest levels of government. While this will surely shed light on current malpractices, a United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights has tweeted concerns about the fact that no journalists or media outlets were allowed in the room where the agreement was being signed. Additionally, Bukele has yet to involve the UN as a larger, more international body in the process, although this is certainly not a required step in the process seeing as how Bukele’s choice to involve the OAS is already a significant step considering the country’s governance history. Thus, while there are important steps being made, there are also some fairly concerning aspects regarding transparency and engagement given that the press and the UN are not as engaged in the agreement process.
Furthermore, there were similar trends of effective, determined actions taken by the president as he was arranging and rearranging key officials. More specifically, Bukele has fired a significant number of officials through Twitter. These are all relatives of the previous presidents, most notably Claudia Sanchez Villalta, daughter of former president Sanchez Ceren, which shows that the president is battling nepotism very well. However, the fact that all of these “orders” have been given out over Twitter and during the first week in his office could be red flags that the president’s office is preparing to normalize these sudden changes. If this is the case, then such actions can result in the banning of opposition and even more authoritative actions. Considering that he is barely past 100 days into his presidency, it would be difficult to predict the outcomes, but one can see that he is ready for bold strategic steps, which both aid the realization of his revolutionary projects and require independent decisions on his part, allowing him quite an authoritative position.
Finally, there is the infamous problem of gangs in the country, and Bukele is as determined and effective in this field as in others. He has installed, as AS/COA notes, a $31 million Territorial Control Plan, which has awakened a greater sense of security among the population. While El Salvador rarely sees a day pass without a homicide, there is a slow but steady decline in the average number of homicides per day. This trend may not be related to Bukele’s administration alone as it has been ongoing since 2016, meaning that there is a greater chance that it is related to gang truces and gang behavior independent of the administration or police action. In any case, the fact that the public feels safer and that there are more patrols on the streets makes Bukele’s decision worthwhile.
Continuing with this trend of taking bold action, Bukele has also appointed Mauricio Arriaza Chicas as the new director of the National Police. While Arriaza Chicas largely contributed to the revival of the armed forces post-civil war and is someone who is capable of getting the job done, it is worth noting that he is also accused of procedural fraud and human rights abuses. This naturally brings concerns as to how Bukele’s strict policy with gangs is going to play out. Given that gangs are born out of violence and that previous aggressive policies, such as Franciso Flores’s “Mano Dura,” have resulted in more violence, stronger responses from the youth population, and clogging of the courts, it is questionable whether such a strict stance and tackling violence with violence is even an effective solution. Of course, this is where President Bukele’s authoritarian behavior is best understood. Combating gangs and violence is obviously the most immediate issue to address, and it is not one that can be solved easily and without exerting greater control. However, the fact that the national force is so centralized and there is seemingly little regard for human rights in the process may not be the most sustainable solution.
Recommendations
To solve the immediate and overwhelming concerns such as corruption and gang violence, some authoritarian behavior is necessary as effective and immediate actions are preferred in that situation, but where the limit is to be set and how firmly the president’s actions need to be put in check is a sensitive question. What is true is that a healthy democracy often needs checks and balances to ensure the protection of minorities and prevent president-elects from turning dictatorial. El Salvador likely needs a president with firm principles and readiness for action, qualities that Bukele holds, but no nation needs a dictatorship with little regard for the processes of law and human dignity. This is why authoritarian behavior, even if welcomed in certain instances, needs to be carefully questioned and put in check.
One way to address this issue is by focusing more attention on El Salvador’s Legislative Assembly and making sure that, while some more immediate concerns are left to the president’s discretion, it is a larger, representative collective that chooses the specific paths of action. The efficiency of such a body must also be increased, especially at times where there are extreme levels of corruption and violence, which may require creating separate chambers to address these issues. This would be similar to El Salvador’s CICIES that Bukele rushed to create and proudly put on display during the first 100 days in the office. However, CICIES, though currently still in the process of getting organized, is yet to show that it is not relying overwhelmingly on the executive branch. Current overalliance of the anti-corruption body on the executive branch puts the current administration in a position to act at its will and potentially overlook instances of its own corrupt officials and practices, thus encouraging the administration to spiral into an authoritarian regime. In order to ensure the transparency that the public deserves and that everyone, including the current administration, can be investigated, such body should rely on the legislative, elected body, not just the president and the national police. These new offices also have to be made up of skilled professionals and given some autonomy in order to produce effective results and be held accountable to the state rather than just be for political show. This way the government would increase its efficiency without relying so much on the presidential powers and checks and balances among the multiple government actors would be more effectively preserved, avoiding the establishment of an authoritarian regime. Even if the creation of such an investigative, anti-corruption body takes longer than the 100 days of the president’s office, it would surely be worthwhile if the result is a well-organized body, accountable to the public, and able to effectively tackle instances of corruption among politicians, not just the opposition to the current administration.