Nayib Bukele & El Salvador: Freedom In Exchange For Security?
Harrison Nejaty
February 26
Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador, has become a controversial figure throughout Western democracies, however, in his region, he is hailed as a saviour and idol. Why is there such a discrepancy?
El Salvador, once a nation consistently leading the world in its homicide rate, now sits at a homicide rate almost akin to the United States. In 2015, there were 103 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants. In 2022, that astounding figure has decreased to 7.8 homicides per 100,000 inhabitants. This staggering 92% reduction can be largely attributed to changes beginning in 2019 when Nayib Bukele took presidential office. He ran his campaign on a platform which prioritized addressing crime reduction and corruption that plagued El Salvador.
Much of the controversy surrounding Bukele has stemmed from the ongoing state of emergency that he instituted in March 2022. There was a state of exception following a spike in gang violence in the same month, where 87 people were killed in one weekend. This state of exception suspends certain liberties such as due process, freedom of movement and the right to association. It was intended to be a temporary solution in order to implement security policies that guaranteed political and territorial control, however, it has since been extended 10 times and still continues to this day. The crackdown included an intense militarization, which directed the military to known gang-affiliated neighbourhoods. Civilians believed to be gang-affiliated would be rounded up and jailed, often based on simple appearance such as tattoos. The lack of constitutional protections through this state of exception allowed the government to withhold these ‘suspects’ without any due process.
On the surface, this state of exception seemed to have accomplished just what it sought to do. In 2022, El Salvador saw its lowest homicide rates in the history of the country. Yet critics - mostly from Western media outlets - have been quick to question the intentions and execution of this authoritarian action. Critics have stated that the gang-filled streets have been infiltrated and replaced with uniformed men with guns. More than 75,000 people accused of gang affiliation have filled the overflowing jails since the beginning of the state of exception. It was stated that many of the detainees were innocent, with little recourse to appeal as judicial reform under the state of emergency destroyed rights to presumption of innocence and a fair trial. On November 18th 2022, the UN Committee Against Torture expressed “deep concern” about “the serious human rights consequences of the measures adopted by the authorities in the framework of the emergency regime.” Moreover, many fear the extent to which this authoritarian tactic can be utilized, whether it be silencing the opposition or imprisoning innocent people. These criticisms have culminated in a common sentiment among the West, which condemns the sacrifice of individual freedoms in the name of a crackdown on crime.
However, it would be naive to hastily pass judgement upon Bukele if one has not lived in the circumstances many Salvadorians faced before Bukele’s presidency. One may make the argument that the erosion of individual freedoms is unacceptable. Another may question what types of freedom the citizens of El Salvador had beneath the ruthless gangs that terrorized and caused high homicide rates in the first place.
Bukele has just been re-elected for his second term in office, winning 83% support with just over 70% of the ballots counted. This statistic brings to mind one question. How can one argue against the legitimacy of a presidency with this much support? While it may seem easy to criticize from an outside perspective, the vote percentages seem to tell a different story.
The approach Bukele has taken has become emulated across many Latin American countries, as these issues are often homologous. The Honduran government has utilized this model of the “state of exception” in 162 neighbourhoods restricting similar rights, illustrating the impact of Bukele’s actions.
El Salvador serves as an unprecedented example of swift crime reduction at the price of individual freedoms. While many Western media outlets are quick to condemn this restriction, a more impartial approach should be taken to assess the context and result of the situation. However, authoritarian action can escalate quickly from scenarios like this, therefore, a critical but empathetic watch should be kept on El Salvador.