SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
nayib bukele
Beware Men Like Bukele and Trump Trying to Bury Our Democracies
Democratic collapse rarely arrives suddenly; it typically emerges from internal decay. Political leaders learn that the most effective path to concentrated power runs through existing institutions rather than around them.
Aug 17, 2025
Democracy in El Salvador crossed a critical threshold at the end of July. The country’s Legislative Assembly, dominated by President Nayib Bukele’s party, passed sweeping constitutional changes that day: presidential term limits were abolished, presidential terms extended from five to six years, and runoff elections were eliminated.
This represented the final phase of power consolidation spanning years. Bukele’s Assembly majority had dismissed all five Constitutional Chamber Supreme Court judges and the attorney general on May 1, 2021, replacing them with loyalists. The restructured court then authorized his bid for a second consecutive term that September, a move the constitution had previously prohibited.
Bukele frames these changes as efforts to “modernize” governance. Critics describe it as autocratic legalism: exploiting legal processes to dismantle democratic safeguards.
What makes this transformation particularly remarkable is Bukele’s sustained popularity. His approval rating reached approximately 85 percent in a June 2025 CID-Gallup poll, driven largely by steep reductions in gang violence. Against this backdrop, constitutional amendments that centralize authority are presented not as power grabs, but as fulfilling “what the people want.”
Bukele’s transformation offers a real-time example of how democratic institutions can be dismantled from within, swiftly, through legal channels, and with broad popular backing. The lesson for Americans is stark: undermining checks and balances requires neither coups nor violent uprisings. What it demands is a leader with sufficient popularity, control over key institutions, and the determination to reshape governing rules.
The process unfolds gradually, making it harder for citizens to recognize the danger until significant damage is done. Each individual step can appear reasonable or even necessary when viewed in isolation. But collectively, these incremental changes can fundamentally alter the balance of power in ways that prove difficult to reverse. Traditional democratic safeguards, such as elections, courts, and legislatures, become tools of consolidation when captured by determined leaders. The very institutions designed to prevent authoritarian takeover can be turned against democracy itself. Unlike external threats or obvious coups that trigger immediate resistance, this internal erosion often proceeds with public approval until the transformation reaches a point of no return.
The international precedent is troubling: once these changes take hold, reversing them requires far more political will and civic mobilization than preventing them in the first place. Most concerning is how this approach exploits democracy’s greatest strength, its responsiveness to popular will, and transforms it into a vulnerability that can be systematically exploited. The result is a system that maintains democratic vocabulary while operating under increasingly authoritarian principles.
El Salvador’s developments represent more than an isolated case; they reflect a worldwide trend. Leaders across various nations have learned to erode democratic systems without staging outright overthrows. Their approach remains consistent: gradually altering governing rules, weakening autonomous institutions, and skewing the political landscape in their direction, while preserving electoral processes to maintain democratic appearances.
Such gradual deterioration poses greater risks than military coups. No armed forces occupy city centers, no dramatic moment marks democracy’s end. The process instead unfolds through calculated, lawful steps, often maintaining sufficient public support to avoid meaningful opposition.
Turkey, Hungary, and India
Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan pursued a comparable trajectory. Following his tenure as prime minister, he assumed the presidency in 2014. He successfully secured passage of a constitutional referendum in April 2017, winning 51.4 percent of the votes, which transformed Turkey’s parliamentary system into a hyper-presidential framework.
In the aftermath of an unsuccessful coup attempt in July 2016, Erdoğan proclaimed a state of emergency, leading to the arrest of tens of thousands of people while dismissing or suspending over 100,000 civil servants, academics, and judges. Previously independent institutions—the judiciary, media, and military—fell under direct presidential authority.
Electoral processes continue, yet with press freedoms constrained and the political arena systematically disadvantaged against opposition forces, genuine competitive democracy has been gutted.
From 2010 onward, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán has restructured the constitution, appointed supporters to the courts, and brought media outlets under government-friendly ownership. Orbán characterizes his approach as an “illiberal democracy.” Political scientists label it a competitive autocracy: voting processes persist, but democratic protections have been eliminated. His strategy, leveraging election wins to establish permanent control, has inspired leaders from Ankara to San Salvador.
Although India remains the world’s largest democracy, Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s leadership has raised concerns among numerous watchdogs. Media freedoms have been eroded, law enforcement bodies have targeted opposition figures, and legislation limiting dissent has been enacted. Although India hasn’t yet entered full authoritarianism, the growing concentration of authority and shrinking space for civil society demonstrate how even robust democracies can drift toward institutional weakening.
The Democratic Mandate Deception
This manipulation of democratic language makes institutional destruction particularly difficult to resist. Electoral victory becomes a blank check for systemic transformation. Leaders argue that because voters chose them, they have permission to remake the entire governmental structure according to their vision. Opposition to their changes isn’t portrayed as defending democracy, but as thwarting popular will.
This rhetoric serves a crucial psychological function: it allows supporters to view obvious power grabs as legitimate democratic evolution rather than authoritarian capture. Citizens who might resist a military coup can be convinced that eliminating institutional safeguards represents voter-mandated reform. When authoritarianism wraps itself in the language of popular sovereignty, distinguishing between legitimate change and democratic destruction becomes nearly impossible for ordinary citizens, until the damage is already complete.
The common thread linking Bukele, Erdoğan, Orbán, and, to a lesser extent, Modi, lies in their approach. Each gained office through democratic elections, then systematically undermined institutional constraints and altered governing structures to prolong their tenure while diminishing oversight.
Certain observers identify similar patterns emerging in the United States. Project 2025, an approximately 920-page blueprint developed by conservative policy organizations, proposed restructuring the executive branch, eliminating civil service safeguards, and expanding political influence over agencies intended to operate independently. Advocates claim this approach would “make government work again.” Bukele offered comparable rhetoric. Erdoğan and Orbán did as well.
The Lesson
Democratic collapse rarely arrives suddenly; it typically emerges from internal decay. Political leaders learn that the most effective path to concentrated power runs through existing institutions rather than around them.
The critical question facing Americans is whether they will identify these warning signs in time, or whether they will follow the path of citizens in El Salvador, Turkey, Hungary, and India, convincing themselves that their situation is uniquely different.
Protecting democratic institutions requires active vigilance, engaged civic participation, and holding all leaders accountable, regardless of their political affiliation. This means prioritizing the country’s institutional health over partisan interests, rejecting empty promises, and opting for substantive transparency over charismatic leadership.
Ultimately, democracy’s survival depends entirely on the decisions its citizens make. If those decisions prioritize institutional integrity, balanced power structures, and democratic principles, democracy will persist. If not, the gradual weakening will persist until the moment arrives when democratic governance ceases to function altogether.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Cover-Up of a Cover-Up': Lawsuit Accuses Trump State Dept of Hiding Human Rights Violation Records
"The Trump-Vance administration is refusing to hand over documents that could show their culpability in hiding international human civil rights abuses," says the president of Democracy Forward.
Aug 11, 2025
A coalition of LGBTQ+ and human rights organizations filed a lawsuit Monday against the U.S. Department of State over its refusal to release congressionally mandated reports on international human rights abuses.
The Council for Global Equality (CGE) has accused the administration of a "cover-up of a cover-up" to keep the reports buried.
Each year, the department is required to report on the practices of other countries concerning individual, civil, political, and worker rights protected under international law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Governments and international groups have long cited these surveys as one of the most comprehensive and authoritative sources on the state of human rights, informing policy surrounding foreign aid and asylum.
The Foreign Assistance Act requires that these reports be sent to Congress by February 25 each year, and they are typically released in March or April. But nearly six months later, the Trump administration has sent nothing for the calendar year 2024.
Meanwhile, NPR reported in April on a State Department memo requiring employees to "streamline" the reports by omitting many of the most common human rights violations:
The reports... will no longer call governments out for such things as denying freedom of movement and peaceful assembly. They won't condemn retaining political prisoners without due process or restrictions on "free and fair elections."
Forcibly returning a refugee or asylum-seeker to a home country where they may face torture or persecution will no longer be highlighted, nor will serious harassment of human rights organizations...
...reports of violence and discrimination against LGBTQ+ people will be removed, along with all references to [diversity, equity, and inclusion] (DEI).
Among other topics ordered to be struck from the reports: involuntary or coercive medical or psychological practices, arbitrary or unlawful interference with privacy, serious restrictions to internet freedom, extensive gender-based violence, and violence or threats of violence targeting people with disabilities.
Last week, The Washington Post obtained leaked copies of the department's reports on nations favored by the Trump administration—El Salvador, Russia, and Israel. It found that they were "significantly shorter" than the reports released by the Biden administration and that they struck references to widely documented human rights abuses in these countries.
In the case of El Salvador, where the administration earlier this year began shipping immigrants deported from the United States, the department's report stated that were "no credible reports of significant human rights abuses" there, even though such abuses—including torture, physical violence, and deprivation have been widely reported, including by Trump's own deportees.
Human rights violations against LGBTQ+ people were deleted from the State Department's report on Russia, while the report on Israel deleted references to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's corruption trial and to his government's threats to the country's independent judiciary.
"Secretary Rubio's overtly political rewriting of the human rights reports is a dramatic departure from even his own past commitment to protecting the fundamental human rights of LGBTQI+ people," said Keifer Buckingham, the Council for Global Equality's managing director. "Strategic omission of these abuses is also directly in contravention to Congress's requirement of a 'full and complete report' regarding the status of internationally recognized human rights."
In June, the CGE sent a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to the State Department calling for all communications related to these decisions to be made public. The department acknowledged the request but refused to turn over any documents.
Now CGE has turned to the courts. On Monday, the legal nonprofit Democracy Forward filed a complaint on CGE's behalf in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the department had violated its duties under FOIA to turn over relevant documents in a timely manner.
"The Trump-Vance administration is refusing to hand over documents that could show their culpability in hiding international human civil rights abuses," said Skye Perryman, Democracy Forward's president and CEO.
"The world is watching the United States. We cannot risk a cover-up on top of a cover-up," Perryman continued. "If this administration is omitting or delaying the release of information about human rights abuses to gain favor with other countries, it is a shameful statement of the gross immorality of this administration."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In Boost to 'Dictator' Bukele, El Salvador Abolishes Presidential Term Limits
"But you won't see Marco Rubio or Donald Trump calling him a dictator, as they do with Maduro," one critic said of the Salvadoran president.
Aug 01, 2025
El Salvador's Legislative Assembly—which is controlled by Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele's New Ideas party—on Thursday approved a series of constitutional reforms, including abolition of presidential term limits, that critics warned pose a grave threat to the Central American nation's fragile democracy.
As El Faro reported, lawmakers approved measures allowing for indefinite presidential terms, expanding the current five-year presidential terms to six years, eliminating the second round of presidential elections, and advancing the end of Bukele's term from 2029 to 2027 in order to synchronize presidential, legislative, and municipal elections.
New Ideas Congresswoman Ana Figueroa, who proposed the reforms, argues that if other elected offices in El Salvador do not have term limits, why should the presidency?
"This is quite simple, Salvadoran people. Only you will be able to decide how long you support your president," Figueroa said Thursday.
Congressional Vice President Suecy Callejas, also of New Ideas, contended that "power has returned to the only place to which it truly belongs... to the Salvadoran people."
However, opposition lawmakers, journalists, human rights defenders, and others condemned the measures, which come amid an ongoing "state of emergency" that, while dramatically reducing crime in what was once the world's murder capital, has seen widespread repression of human and civil rights.
"Democracy has died in El Salvador today," said Congresswoman Marcela Villatoro of the opposition ARENA party, who argued that the reforms were "approved without consultation, in a gross and cynical way."
Thiago Süssekind, a Brazilian scholar and professor at the University of Oxford in England, called the reforms' passage "the moment when El Salvador buried its democracy."
"Nayib Bukele—the darling dictator of the Latin right—can now govern forever," Süssekind added. "The discourse, paradoxically, is about democracy—deliberately conflating it with the will of the majority."
Chilean pollster Marta Lagos argued on social media that El Salvador is being transformed into "an electoral dictatorship" that "excludes an essential element of democracy: respect for minorities, the rule of law, the separation of powers, and civic and political freedoms."
Lagos noted "the detention of thousands of people without due process," an apparent reference to prisons including the notorious Terrorism Confinement Center, where the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump—an erstwhile critic-turned-ally of Bukele—is sending deported migrants, including innocent people, to face abusive and sometimes deadly imprisonment.
Juanita Goebertus, director of the Americas division at Human Rights Watch (HRW), argued that New Ideas is "following the same path as Venezuela."
HRW and other human rights groups accuse the United Socialist Party government of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro of grave human rights and electoral abuses, and many leftists in Venezuela and beyond feel the Bolivarian Revolution launched under former President Hugo Chávez has been betrayed.
"It starts with a leader who uses their popularity to concentrate power, and ends in dictatorship," Goebertus warned.
Like Trump, Bukele has shrugged off—and at times even embraced—the "dictator" label. He once called himself the "coolest dictator in the world."
Trump—who has himself flirted with the concept of being president for life, or at least for a third term—has remained silent about Bukele's democratic backsliding, even as his administration imposes staggering tariffs on Brazil and punitive sanctions on a leading member of its judiciary for defending democracy.
Plaudits for Bukele, Magnitsky sanctions for de Moraes. The Rubio way.
[image or embed]
— Aaron Reichlin-Melnick (@reichlinmelnick.bsky.social) July 30, 2025 at 2:33 PM
Such actions, along with the Trump administration's record of targeting certain authoritarian governments while courting and coddling others, drew stinging rebuke by social media users in El Salvador and beyond.
Comments from Latin American X users included:
- "Spending 20 years calling Hugo Chávez a dictator over the issue of indefinite reelection only to end up applauding Bukele for doing the same and calling him a democrat. They're so adorable!!!" -@ArondonFT
- "They criticize Venezuela and Cuba, but support the dictator Bukele? Hypocrisy disguised as democracy." -@zandrusky
- "To me, 'indefinite presidential reelection' sounds like a dictatorship, but since it's Bukele and not Maduro, I guess it's no big deal and just my imagination." -@BenderOfuscando
- "Bukele perpetuates himself in power, but the right will not call him a dictator as it does with Maduro. And El Salvador will not receive sanctions from the U.S., as Venezuela does. The right and the U.S. do not care that Bukele is a dictator, as long as he is one of theirs." -@andres20ad
Thursday's reforms—which must still be ratified by lawmakers—mark the second major modification of presidential term limits in El Salvador. Although the country's constitution prohibits presidential reelection, New Ideas purged the constitutional court's judges and replaced them with ones loyal to Bukele. The court subsequently ruled Bukele was eligible to run again, and he won last year's election in a landslide.
Bukele wasn't always so keen on presidential reelection. In a 2013 interview, he said that "in El Salvador, a president cannot be reelected."
"This is to ensure that he... doesn't use his power to remain in power," Bukele added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular