El Salvador: The False Tradeoffs Between Security and Democracy

El Salvador: The False Tradeoffs Between Security and Democracy

El Salvador’s gang problem has long plagued its citizens, with violent territorial control by gangs leading to a reign of terror characterized by rampant extortion, high homicide rates, and destructive turf wars. The severity of this crisis made it unsurprising when Salvadorans welcomed Nayib Bukele as a potential savior upon his election in 2019. His promise of decisive action, embodied in his Territorial Control Plan (PCT), raised hopes for an end to the nightmare. And he delivered. Bukele assumed office five years ago, and after winning his re-election with more than 80% of the vote earlier this year, he will be in office until at least 2029. In spite of his success with the PCT, his increasingly authoritarian rule has caused a dangerous erosion of democratic norms and institutions in El Salvador. This, in turn, can open the doors to future instability, corruption, further human rights violations, and even a return to the very violence that recently plagued the country

Critical assaults on the judiciary and electoral law

Bukele’s tenure began with alarming displays of power, such as deploying military troops to intimidate Congress into approving funding for his security initiatives. This symbolic move, reflecting his aggressive rhetoric, was an early indicator of his willingness to bypass democratic processes for expediency. The subsequent actions taken by his administration, particularly against the judiciary, further underscored his disregard for democratic checks and balances.

One of Bukele’s most concerning actions was his systematic assault on the judiciary. In May 2021, Bukele’s New Ideas (NI) Party used its newly acquired majority in the Legislative Assembly to remove all five magistrates of the Constitutional Court, the highest judicial body in the country, as well as the Attorney General. This move was widely condemned as a power grab designed to eliminate judicial independence and allow Bukele to consolidate power. By packing the Constitutional Court with loyalists, Bukele effectively removed any institutional barriers to his security agenda.

Moreover, in September 2021, the newly appointed Constitutional Court judges — handpicked by Bukele — ruled that he could run for consecutive re-election, despite the constitution’s explicit ban on it. Since the transition to democracy in 1992, the Salvadoran constitution allowed only a single five-year term with no possibility of immediate re-election, a safeguard intended to prevent the return to authoritarian rule. In legal terms, this reinterpretation effectively derogated the constitution’s provision preventing consecutive re-election, bypassing the need for a formal constitutional amendment and undermining the original intent of the constitutional safeguard. This ruling was widely seen as a blatant manipulation of the judiciary to serve Bukele’s political ambitions. Additionally, Bukele has undermined the independence of other institutions by appointing loyalists to key positions, including the Attorney General’s Office, thereby weakening the system of checks and balances that are fundamental to a functioning democracy.

Another critical aspect of Bukele’s strategy is the prolonged use of emergency powers under the ongoing and effectively indefinite martial law or “state of exception” (in Spanish, estado de excepción), first implemented on March 27, 2022, following a particularly violent weekend in which 87 people were killed. This state of exception has been continuously extended, 30 days at a time, with the backing of a compliant Congress and judiciary. It allows the government to suspend certain civil liberties, such as the freedom of assembly and association, ostensibly to combat gang violence more effectively. While Bukele’s supporters argue that these measures are necessary for restoring order, the long-term implications for democracy are dire, illustrating the false tradeoff between the positives of immediate security and the positives of democratic checks and balances and democratic stability. Even though Bukele has recently mentioned the possibility of lifting the 2.5-years-long state of exception soon, the more significant and lasting concern lies in the dismantling of democratic institutions that has occurred both before and during this period, which poses a far greater threat to the long-term stability and democratic health of the nation.

The problems with Bukele’s version of “mano dura”

While a focus on security is undoubtedly crucial in a country that has been plagued by violence for decades, Bukele’s “mano dura” approach raises concerns about its long-term viability and the health of El Salvador’s democracy. Although he has largely taken control of all three branches of government, little has been done to increase the judiciary’s capacity to process the more than 80,000 individuals who have been arrested during the state of exception. Attempting to rush a massive amount of people in a short period of time, is not only impractical, but also highlights the dangers of circumventing due process. In July 2023, the NI-controlled Legislative Assembly approved controversial reforms that allow for mass trials of up to 900 detainees at once, formalizing a practice that had already been happening de facto. These trials, criticized by the United Nations for violating due process guarantees, risk the wrongful conviction of thousands, with little hope for correction. To illustrate, there are reports of cases where a public defendant is given three to four minutes to present the cases of up to 500 detainees at once. Compounding these issues, reports indicate that, as of July 2024, at least 261 people have died in prison under the anti-gang crackdown, with causes including torture, malnutrition, and unsanitary conditions, among others, further illustrating the severe human rights concerns associated with these policies. Although around 7,000 detainees have been released due to insufficient evidence, it remains difficult to assess how many more are unjustly detained or convicted. Sustaining such measures indefinitely opens the door for future abuses and rampant corruption due to the lack of checks and balances.

Moreover, Bukele’s strategy lacks a comprehensive long-term plan to rehabilitate and reintegrate those arrested into society. A sustainable solution would involve comprehensive rehabilitation programs, vocational training, and education initiatives aimed at breaking the cycle of violence and preventing the recruitment of new gang members, avoiding the unintended consequences of previous administrations’ “mano dura” policies that inadvertently aided gang consolidation and growth. Without these measures, the country risks perpetuating the very problems it seeks to eradicate, undermining any short-term gains in security.

It is crucial to emphasize that the problem is not with the use of law enforcement or even the concept of “mano dura” itself, but with how these measures are implemented. Effective crime control requires a multifaceted and inclusive approach that addresses the root causes of violence and maintains the integrity of democratic institutions. Security forces can and must play a vital role in ensuring public safety, but their actions must be transparent and respectful of human rights to build lasting peace and stability.

Why democracies are better for long-term stability

While authoritarian and hybrid authoritarian regimes may appear effective in addressing a series of immediate challenges through coercive measures, the long-term sustainability of such approaches is highly questionable. A democratic system, despite giving the impression of being less efficient in the short term, offers essential corrective mechanisms that safeguard long-term stability and justice. In a democracy, the separation of powers and the independence of institutions like the judiciary ensure that no single branch of government can overreach, preventing the concentration of power already seen under Bukele.

Democratic systems are designed to protect individual rights through checks and balances, such as judicial review, free press, and free and fair elections. These mechanisms allow for the correction of abuses and errors, something Bukele’s approach severely lacks. For example, in Bukele’s El Salvador, the mass trials and the weakening of judicial independence make it nearly impossible to consistently rectify wrongful convictions or systemic abuses. This creates a dangerous precedent where the erosion of rights and civil liberties becomes normalized, and makes it easier for an authoritarian government to solidify its rule.

The checks and balances that are crucial for democratic governance also encourage transparency and accountability, which are vital for ensuring that security measures are both effective and just. In contrast, Bukele’s strategy, while seemingly efficient, undermines these principles by centralizing power and suppressing dissent. The lack of institutional checks means that once power is concentrated it is difficult to reverse, and the country risks descending into autocracy. This concentration of power not only threatens human rights but also weakens the institutions that are necessary for addressing future challenges, making the country more vulnerable in the long run.

In essence, while Bukele’s methods might provide remarkable short-term gains in security, the long-term consequences are dire. The erosion of democratic institutions and the rule of law could lead to a cycle of authoritarianism, where power is maintained through coercion rather than legitimate governance. Over time, as the record of history has made it clear, this can result in greater instability, corruption, and the loss of public trust, ultimately making the country less secure, more prone to internal conflict, and a place where authorities can commit human rights violations with impunity.

El Salvador’s experience under Bukele serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of sacrificing democracy for the sake of immediate security. While the immediate results of his “mano dura” policies, enabled by a dismantling of checks and balances on his power, may seem promising, the long-term consequences for El Salvador’s democracy and stability are far more concerning. True and long-lasting security and prosperity can only be achieved through measures that are coupled with the preservation and strengthening of democratic institutions.

Luciana Fortuna is a research fellow with the Human Rights Foundation.