ust days before Salvadorans went to the polls, U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele exchanged jabs over social media. Omar shared a letter from her and other progressive members of Congress to U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken calling on the State Department to take every available action to ensure free and fair elections in El Salvador. Bukele responded that it was an “honor to receive [her] attacks” and shortly later said the United States needed free and fair elections. Omar is right to be concerned over the state of democracy in El Salvador, but Omar’s record and Bukele’s response highlight how the polarization of the defense of democracy has hampered the ability to address democratic challenges and the need for concerted efforts to defend human rights and democracy in the Americas.
Bukele’s tenure as president of El Salvador and his effort to circumvent term limits in the country do present challenges for democracy and human rights defenders. Over the course of his term as president, the self-proclaimed “world’s coolest dictator” has been a political lightning rod eliciting strong responses from fans and opponents alike. Fans of Bukele include Bitcoin evangelicals, who appreciate his efforts to make El Salvador the crypto capital of the world, and those concerned with rising crime rates, who view his tough–on–crime approach as a model for the region. Critics point at everything from the volatility of cryptocurrencies to the damage that Bukele’s policies have had on the democratic and human rights condition in the country. Many human rights groups have voiced concerns over the implications of his crackdown on crime. Likewise, there are concerns about how his tenure will impact democracy in the country particularly after he marched soldiers into the legislature in 2022 and now that he is flaunting the ban on reelection in the country.
However, Bukele’s efforts to avoid term limits are nothing new. Several Latin American leaders have sought to erode these safeguards from their constitutions—sometimes triggering democratic crises. Leaders including Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Álvaro Uribe in Colombia, and Manuel Zelaya in Honduras sought to extend their terms beyond constitutional limits, albeit with very different outcomes. More recently, in Bolivia, former president Evo Morales ended term limits in order to allow himself to run for reelection in 2019, claiming term limits violated his human rights. While the position was initially upheld by Bolivian courts, others called what was happening a “slow motion coup” and this defense of term limits was later struck down by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and reversed by the Bolivian courts.
The challenge that Omar and her colleagues face in condemning these actions is not just that Bukele has support from different sectors, but also that these members of Congress have been inconsistent in their condemnation of threats to democracy in the Americas. In fact, when the military stepped in following concerns about electoral irregularities in the 2019 Bolivian election, Omar and other progressive candidates were quick to call what occurred a coup—despite Morales' similar efforts to eliminate term limits. Given Bukele’s popularity at home, the results of the 2024 election were never really in question. The Salvadoran people want to reelect Bukele for another term. Omar and her colleagues are right to question the longer-term implications of this election on the country’s democracy and human rights. However, leaders across the political spectrum must be as willing to call out democratic backsliding by perceived political and geopolitical allies, not just opponents. Their inconsistency undermines their ability to challenge human rights abuses and democratic threats everywhere. Nor are U.S. politicians the only ones who have been inconsistent in their defense of democracy and faced criticism over politicizing different crises. The Organization of American States has also faced these criticisms.
In order to defend democracy in the Americas, proponents of democracy must speak with a unified voice and strengthen mechanisms for both reporting on democratic decay and defending against them. At the regional level, the Organization of American States has important mechanisms in place to defend democracy including a long history of election monitoring missions and the Inter-American Democratic Charter. While these are important mechanisms, they have their own limitations. In particular, they often rely on the invitation of states—and in particular their leaders. This can limit their effectiveness, particularly when a nation’s executive is the party undermining democracy. To address this, countries should commit to regular audits by experts in the field and to allowing the OAS to monitor all elections without the need for a formal invitation. Similarly, all nations in the hemisphere should join the Inter-American Court for Human Rights—a body that currently only counts 23 of the 35 sovereign states of the Americas as members. In addition to strengthening these systems, U.S. and regional politicians should use reports from regional and international organizations as the basis for their critiques of democracy abroad rather than relying on potentially biased news sources or based on their own political preferences.
Defending democracy and human rights is no easy task. The task is only made harder when these issues are politicized. If the Americas wish to truly promote democracy and equal rights, politicians in these countries must act not only in cases where they are opposed to those attacking political and human rights abroad, but also when these attacks come from their political allies. Only then can these threats be addressed holistically rather than further politicizing the hemisphere.
a global affairs media network
Polarization and democratic decay in the Americas
Plaza Gerardo Barrios in San Salvador, El Salvador. Image by Esaú Fuentes González from Unsplash.
February 15, 2024
The 2024 reelection of Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele represents a threat to both democracy and human rights for the Americas as Bukele has broken term limits—among other concerning political moves. Proponents of democracy must speak up to avoid further polarization, writes Adam Ratzlaff.
J
ust days before Salvadorans went to the polls, U.S. Congresswoman Ilhan Omar and Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele exchanged jabs over social media. Omar shared a letter from her and other progressive members of Congress to U.S. Secretary of State Anthony Blinken calling on the State Department to take every available action to ensure free and fair elections in El Salvador. Bukele responded that it was an “honor to receive [her] attacks” and shortly later said the United States needed free and fair elections. Omar is right to be concerned over the state of democracy in El Salvador, but Omar’s record and Bukele’s response highlight how the polarization of the defense of democracy has hampered the ability to address democratic challenges and the need for concerted efforts to defend human rights and democracy in the Americas.
Bukele’s tenure as president of El Salvador and his effort to circumvent term limits in the country do present challenges for democracy and human rights defenders. Over the course of his term as president, the self-proclaimed “world’s coolest dictator” has been a political lightning rod eliciting strong responses from fans and opponents alike. Fans of Bukele include Bitcoin evangelicals, who appreciate his efforts to make El Salvador the crypto capital of the world, and those concerned with rising crime rates, who view his tough–on–crime approach as a model for the region. Critics point at everything from the volatility of cryptocurrencies to the damage that Bukele’s policies have had on the democratic and human rights condition in the country. Many human rights groups have voiced concerns over the implications of his crackdown on crime. Likewise, there are concerns about how his tenure will impact democracy in the country particularly after he marched soldiers into the legislature in 2022 and now that he is flaunting the ban on reelection in the country.
However, Bukele’s efforts to avoid term limits are nothing new. Several Latin American leaders have sought to erode these safeguards from their constitutions—sometimes triggering democratic crises. Leaders including Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, Álvaro Uribe in Colombia, and Manuel Zelaya in Honduras sought to extend their terms beyond constitutional limits, albeit with very different outcomes. More recently, in Bolivia, former president Evo Morales ended term limits in order to allow himself to run for reelection in 2019, claiming term limits violated his human rights. While the position was initially upheld by Bolivian courts, others called what was happening a “slow motion coup” and this defense of term limits was later struck down by the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and reversed by the Bolivian courts.
The challenge that Omar and her colleagues face in condemning these actions is not just that Bukele has support from different sectors, but also that these members of Congress have been inconsistent in their condemnation of threats to democracy in the Americas. In fact, when the military stepped in following concerns about electoral irregularities in the 2019 Bolivian election, Omar and other progressive candidates were quick to call what occurred a coup—despite Morales' similar efforts to eliminate term limits. Given Bukele’s popularity at home, the results of the 2024 election were never really in question. The Salvadoran people want to reelect Bukele for another term. Omar and her colleagues are right to question the longer-term implications of this election on the country’s democracy and human rights. However, leaders across the political spectrum must be as willing to call out democratic backsliding by perceived political and geopolitical allies, not just opponents. Their inconsistency undermines their ability to challenge human rights abuses and democratic threats everywhere. Nor are U.S. politicians the only ones who have been inconsistent in their defense of democracy and faced criticism over politicizing different crises. The Organization of American States has also faced these criticisms.
In order to defend democracy in the Americas, proponents of democracy must speak with a unified voice and strengthen mechanisms for both reporting on democratic decay and defending against them. At the regional level, the Organization of American States has important mechanisms in place to defend democracy including a long history of election monitoring missions and the Inter-American Democratic Charter. While these are important mechanisms, they have their own limitations. In particular, they often rely on the invitation of states—and in particular their leaders. This can limit their effectiveness, particularly when a nation’s executive is the party undermining democracy. To address this, countries should commit to regular audits by experts in the field and to allowing the OAS to monitor all elections without the need for a formal invitation. Similarly, all nations in the hemisphere should join the Inter-American Court for Human Rights—a body that currently only counts 23 of the 35 sovereign states of the Americas as members. In addition to strengthening these systems, U.S. and regional politicians should use reports from regional and international organizations as the basis for their critiques of democracy abroad rather than relying on potentially biased news sources or based on their own political preferences.
Defending democracy and human rights is no easy task. The task is only made harder when these issues are politicized. If the Americas wish to truly promote democracy and equal rights, politicians in these countries must act not only in cases where they are opposed to those attacking political and human rights abroad, but also when these attacks come from their political allies. Only then can these threats be addressed holistically rather than further politicizing the hemisphere.
