El Salvador under Nayib Bukele: sacrificing freedom for security

By David Cheng

“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” — Benjamin Franklin

Under the rule of President Nayib Bukele, El Salvador has become increasingly authoritarian, posing a grave threat to its fragile democratic system. El Salvador has really only had a (relatively) democratic system since 1992, after its bloody 12-year civil war had ended with UN-mediated peace talks. Until 2019, the two biggest political parties were the conservative Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) and the left-wing Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN). While the political system was marred with accusations of corruption and incompetence, there were free and fair elections and peaceful transfers of power between the two main parties. In addition, the judiciary was generally considered to be independent. However, Bukele has eviscerated judicial independence, consolidated power for himself, and systematically violated the human rights of tens of thousands of Salvadoran citizens.

In 2021, after winning a supermajority in the Legislative Assembly, Bukele’s Nuevas Ideas (NI) party removed and replaced 5 justices from the Supreme Court of El Salvador without any reasonable cause. In addition, the legislature then appointed 5 additional justices to the Supreme Court, in direct violation of Salvadoran law, which only allows each iteration of the legislature to appoint 5 justices. Unsurprisingly, the new Supreme Court, now packed with Bukele loyalists, ruled that Bukele could run for re-election, even though the Salvadoran Constitution explicitly prohibits it. Having all 3 branches of the government (executive, legislative, judicial) under his control, Bukele is getting dangerously close to bringing El Salvador to a one-party state. The 19th-century British politician Lord Acton famously wrote that: “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” No matter one’s opinion of Bukele’s personality, political ideology, or proposed policies, it is undemocratic to suggest that one man or even one party should have free reign over an entire country’s political system for even a short period of time. It is legitimate for the Salvadoran electorate to show their support for NI by giving them a supermajority in the Legislative Assembly and Bukele the presidency. It is odious and illiberal, however, for Bukele to pack the Supreme Court with loyalists to unconstitutionally give himself a consecutive second term. If Bukele is truly such an inspiring and popular figure, then surely he can wait a few years to run again.

Perhaps more immediately alarming is the fact that President Bukele has ordered the arbitrary and extrajudicial arrests of tens of thousands of Salvadorans with suspected ties to organized crime. Due to the state of exception that the NI-controlled legislature approved (and has continuously renewed), police are allowed to arrest suspects without a warrant and not inform them of the reason for their arrest, as well as allowing suspects to be detained for up to 15 days without being charged. It has been alleged that police have targeted individuals for arrest based on their appearance or place of residence, with many young men from impoverished neighborhoods being arrested seemingly without reasonable cause. While being detained, suspects also do not have access to a lawyer. Bukele has also made some highly inappropriate comments regarding the alleged offenders that reflect a lack of respect for the separation of powers. He proclaimed that thousands of suspects being held at a new mega-prison would stay there for decades, even though they largely haven’t even been charged with a crime. Bukele, no criminologist himself, bizarrely tweeted that only 1 percent of arrestees were innocent, and that those “mistakes” would quickly be corrected. Putting aside the fact that unlawfully arresting someone is a serious human rights violation, not a mere “mistake,” the Bukele government has not been responsive to the demands of protestors who have called for the release of innocents, even though it has been more than a year since the start of the arrests. Distressingly, it seems that, based on anecdotal accounts, many former gang members who have turned their lives around have also been arrested. Bukele has acknowledged this, but, instead of promising their release, said that they must “face the consequences of their actions,” even though, in all likelihood, the police have no concrete involvement of their current involvement in gang activities. The human rights organization Cristosal estimated that only 30 percent of those arrested were actually gang members, further casting doubt on the effectiveness of Bukele’s strategy and his true motives behind this draconian crackdown.

While Bukele enjoys widespread support for his (likely unconstitutional) re-election, it is important to stress that the measures he has taken to ostensibly reduce crime are not only unethical, but also likely illegal under his own constitution. Article 29 of the Salvadoran constitution states that certain rights may be suspended “In cases of war, invasion of territory, rebellion, sedition, catastrophe, epidemic, or other general disaster, or serious disturbances of public order.” A 1997 decision by the Supreme Court found that an increase in crime rates did not constitute a valid reason to declare a state of exception, which should have closed the door on Bukele’s plan. However, since he has packed the court, it’s unlikely that it will find his policy unconstitutional. In addition, it should be noted that El Salvador’s state of exception is not even remotely comparable to the United States’ so-called “tough-on-crime” policies that started in the 1970s. “Tough-on-crime” meant more stringent laws, (significantly) longer prison sentences, and expanded police powers of search and seizure. It did not involve people being arrested and held without charge for extended periods of time, while being deprived of their right to legal counsel and to challenge the legality of their detention. It’s evident that Bukele does not want Salvadorans to know the truth about what is happening, as he has passed a law that criminalizes journalists for reporting on the country’s gangs. This has led to El Faro, a leading Salvadoran independent media outlet, deciding to relocate to Costa Rica for fear of government reprisal. Whenever a government wants to restrict the press from covering something of significance to the public, it’s a red flag for authoritarianism, since they are usually scared of journalists uncovering their unlawful activities.

Bukele’s authoritarian policies also directly threaten other Central American countries, bringing instability and chaos to an already-struggling region. Fearing the draconian nature of El Salvador’s crackdown, many alleged gang members have fled to neighboring countries like Guatemala, reportedly leading to an increase in crimes such as extortion. Given that Central American nations are already dealing with a substantial migration crisis, adding potentially dangerous gang members to the mix is like pouring fuel on a raging fire. Furthermore, Bukele has set a worrying precedent that other leaders in the region are emulating. President Xiomara Castro of Honduras, almost certainly copying Bukele, has also declared a state of exception and declared war against gangs. While the Honduran struggle with organized crime should not be minimized, there is ample reason to suggest that this is merely an attempt by Castro to counter criticism that she has not done enough to combat crime. While democratically-elected governments should always try to be responsive to public opinion, it is irresponsible to suspend the civil rights of certain citizens for electoral or PR purposes.

For these reasons, the United States should continue to document and call out El Salvador’s human rights violations. It is heartening that the US has already taken several steps to address the deteriorating situation in El Salvador, including condemning the law limiting reporting on gangs, speaking against Bukele’s removal of Supreme Court justices, and calling for the protection of civil and due process rights in light of the state of exception. It is unfortunate, though, that some opportunistic and ill-intentioned American lawmakers such as Marco Rubio have minimized human rights violations in El Salvador in an attempt to score domestic political points against President Biden. It might be worth mentioning to Senator Rubio that Bukele’s policies may actually exacerbate the migration crisis and diffuse Salvadoran gang members across the region (including the United States), outcomes that he surely wants to avoid. Fortunately, both the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (part of the Organization of American States) have called for the full restoration of all rights suspended under the state of exception. However, more concrete and substantive action is required. For starters, the United States should sanction key Salvadoran government officials involved with the crackdown under the Global Magnitsky Act, which allows for visa restrictions and the freezing of assets. The Act authorizes sanctions for anyone responsible for “extrajudicial killings, torture, or other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” There have already been cases of torture that have been documented, and the arbitrary arrests and deprivation of civil rights surely fit the definition of “other gross violations of internationally recognized human rights.” In addition, the US should urge the UN Human Rights Council to investigate human rights violations in El Salvador and put pressure on the Bukele government to end its state of exception. 

Standing up to human rights abuses in El Salvador will not only send a clear message to the Bukele government, but will deter other governments in the region from going down the same path as Bukele. To be clear, the United States should not take any action in contravention of international law (such as a military intervention). In the 1960s and the 1980s, the US funded paramilitary groups as well as the Salvadoran military in an attempt to stop socialist guerilla groups. These were illegal and immoral efforts that resulted in the deaths of countless innocents. However, today, the United States is El Salvador’s main trading partner, and should use its influence to stop human rights violations rather than cause them.