In the last two years, El Salvador has witnessed an unprecedented state-led crackdown on gang violence under President Nayib Bukele. The policies, which include mass arrests, curfews, and suspension of fundamental rights under an extended state of emergency, have been met with approval from many Salvadorans but serious concern from international observers. While Bukele’s popularity remains high, how he has achieved his successes raises questions about the health of El Salvador’s democracy. This post argues that Bukele’s anti-gang policies, while effective in the short term, demonstrate a pattern of executive overreach, suppression of dissent, and erosion of democratic checks, positioning El Salvador on a dangerous trajectory towards authoritarianism.

Bukele’s anti-gang policies operate under a prolonged state of emergency that, initially meant to last 30 days, has now extended for over a year. This emergency status enables the government to suspend fundamental rights, including freedom of assembly and protection against arbitrary detention. As a result, more than 70,000 alleged gang members have been arrested, often without formal charges, according to government statistics. While these measures have drastically reduced violence, they reflect signs of executive overreach. In democratic theory, prolonged states of emergency are often indicative of approaching authoritarianism. Emergency powers are typically designed to be temporary and proportionate to the threat faced. Yet, Bukele’s government has utilized these powers indefinitely, sidelining legislative processes and marginalizing judicial review. This undermines the rule of law, a pillar of democratic governance, and raises the risk of normalizing extraordinary powers that could be used against political opponents or civil society actors.

Bukele’s popularity complicates the issue. Many Salvadorans support his policies, viewing them as necessary measures in a country long troubled by gang violence. Yet, public approval can mask the erosion of democratic norms. Authoritarian leaders often use high approval ratings to justify concentrating power, framing opposition as unpatriotic or as obstacles to public safety. In this case, Bukele has used his popularity to sidestep accountability mechanisms. His administration has cracked down on independent media and activists, labeling critics as gang sympathizers or enemies of the state. This delegitimizes dissent and weakens civil society, an important check on power in any democracy. When leaders exploit public support to justify repressive measures, they establish a precedent that democratic norms can be overridden by popular will, a characteristic often seen in regimes slipping towards autocracy.

An independent judiciary is crucial to maintaining a balance of power, yet Bukele’s administration has taken steps to limit judicial independence. Early in his presidency, Bukele led a legislative-backed effort to remove five Supreme Court justices and the Attorney General, replacing them with individuals aligned with his administration. This concentration of power in the executive branch undermines judicial oversight, allowing the government to enact policies without fear of legal retaliation. Furthermore, the legislative assembly, dominated by Bukele’s party, Nuevas Ideas, has largely supported the executive’s agenda. This unchecked legislative compliance has enabled Bukele to push forward controversial policies with little resistance. The weakening of both the judiciary and legislature creates a power imbalance, allowing executive overreach and undercutting essential democratic safeguards.

The erosion of democratic norms in El Salvador has not gone unnoticed internationally. Human rights organizations, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, have condemned Bukele’s tactics, arguing that mass arrests and curtailments of civil liberties violate human rights standards. However, Bukele has largely dismissed these criticisms, characterizing them as foreign interference. This “us versus them” rhetoric, common among populist leaders, allows Bukele to delegitimize external criticism and rally domestic support. International isolation, however, comes with consequences. If Bukele continues on this trajectory, El Salvador may face reduced access to foreign aid, trade partnerships, and diplomatic support, further isolating the country and potentially harming its economy. In the long term, democratic erosion threatens El Salvador’s position in the international community, creating risks for its citizens’ economic security and development.

Bukele’s anti-gang policies may have brought immediate reductions in violence, but the long-term cost to democracy is significant. By undermining judicial independence, curbing civil liberties, and concentrating executive power, Bukele is setting a dangerous precedent for future governing in El Salvador. Although many Salvadorans back his efforts, this short-term success risks embedding a style of governance based on unchecked power, creating conditions where future leaders could exploit these same mechanisms. As such, El Salvador’s current state illustrates a classic case of democratic erosion under the guise of public safety. For El Salvador to maintain its democratic integrity, civil society, the judiciary, and international actors must hold the Bukele administration accountable. Without these safeguards, El Salvador’s democracy risks transforming into an authoritarian regime.

This analysis links El Salvador’s crackdown to broader trends in democratic erosion, illustrating how concentrated power, weakened checks and balances, and suppression of dissent can destabilize democracy. This argument can be evaluated: if El Salvador’s judiciary and legislature were to reassert their independence and safeguard civil liberties, it would reduce the shift toward authoritarianism. On the other hand, if executive power continues to consolidate, it would reinforce fears of democratic backsliding.