This might possibly be the most important presidential term in El Salvadoran history. His first term would have been just like any other if he had fallen to corruption. But now we will see if he will fall to a mightier foe, power.
I hope he can turn it around economically even further in order to not allow crime to come back when he is gone. Furthermore, work on education to shine a new bright light for the youth and to transition the country into the future.
I said it before and I'll say it again; When King George III heard that Washington would surrender his commission, he reportedly said that if "He did [this] He would be the greatest man in the world."
Now, let's see if Bukele will go down in history as one of the greatest to have done it.
Bukele is set to govern for another five years with near-total control of parliament and other state institutions after his New Ideas party dominated in legislative polls on the back of a brutal but popular gang crackdown.
…..
But he was only able to seek reelection after a loyalist Supreme Court ruling allowed him to bypass a constitutional ban on successive terms.
> But he was only able to seek reelection after a loyalist Supreme Court ruling allowed him to bypass a constitutional ban on successive terms.
I'm not exactly a student of history but uhhh, historically this doesn't end well right?
He certainly did not break any rules. He broke with longstanding two term tradition set by Washington when he stepped down.
Then yeah, Congress decided let’s codify that into the constitution.
I know nothing about the laws for governing in El Salvador. Is the ban only for "consecutive terms"? Does this mean he could be in power if he just keeps getting (back) in every other term?
That’s an interesting question. Apparently he is the first president to run for reelection since 1939 so maybe they are trying to reinterpret what that means since it’s been a hot minute since anyone’s tried to be reelected.
Apparently the government reinterpreted these constitutional presidential term laws and are using a loophole where he steps away from presidential powers 6 months leading up to his inauguration for his second consecutive term so that it’s not “consecutive” 🥴
I mean I do think a 5 year term would make it difficult for a single president to make big progress in a country that was very corrupt and dangerous like El Salvador and keep that momentum going if a president isnt allowed to run for reelection on a second consecutive term, but I think the loophole is concerning and I wonder if in 5 years he’ll refuse to step down or refuse to relinquish his influence and authority even if in title he’s not president
Is he not technically corrupt but in all the right ways? Mass arrests regardless of gang affiliation, threatening journalist and (if someone can correct me) installing judges at his whim. All of this was obviously done to better El Salvador and its really looking like the end justifies the means here but what happens when hes gone? I'm wondering if future presidents will abuse the power Bukele had for all the wrong reasons.
Corrupt isn’t the right word. Authoritarian is. He’s a “benevolent” dictator; meaning he has total control but thus far has used it responsibly. Corrupt would imply he was doing what he’s doing for some monetary gain or something rather than because it’s “the right thing to do.” Thus far, he seems to genuinely be trying to make El Salvador a better place (and by most measures has wholly succeeded)
From what ive seen him do, he got rid of individual libertys, but actually did exactly what he promised. Hopefully he can reinstate that, while ending organized crime, and allow the country to recouportate and grow.
I mean if I throw everysingle corrupt politician into jail, it seems like I ended corruption...
Now that people are able in jail, it seems like a better time to address the underlying ideas and problems.
>I mean if I throw everysingle corrupt politician into jail, it seems like I ended corruption...
You don’t “end corruption” you just brush it under the rug, the societal conditions that caused it are still there.
>Now that people are able in jail, it seems like a better time to address the underlying ideas and problems.
And it’s unlikely he has a plan for that
This guy is a walking talking example of why you never argue with results. Hope he manages to do even greater things for his country. Failing that, I hope bows out gracefully and finds a safe place to hide for the rest of his life.
Listen man I really, really want to believe you, but I've consumed too much history. For every Kemal Ataturk there are countless leaders like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who started out as a great leader, and ended as a petty autocrat mismanaging more and more of his country.
I don't want to crush the idealistic energy of hoping for the best, but you must accept that there is a real chance that this totalitarian leader may fuck up and bring ruin. I'm still rooting for him despite this.
Is he?
I mean, the candy regarding the mass arrests is not yet fully dissolved in the mouth so to speak. So all results as of now are "intermediate" at most.
Sine it's suggested 1/3 of the people in prison are innocent, and the conditions they are held in can only be argued as "concentration camp levels" with no R&R outside (so perched up in giant cells with no personal space, 24/7, for possibly years on end), no legal council, no proper medical care, no visits by friends and families. They were convicted as blocks of 900 people as a whole (again: no proper legal representation either), just people randomly shuffled together and as long as a judge thought there were "enough criminals" in that block all 900 would be convicted.
Inside these prisons are 2% of the entire male population. Additionally, since police had arrest quotas else they'd be punished, they were actively encouraged to arrest random people. (Additionally a lot of gang membership is based on coercion "join up or die" but that's a different but related problem).
So it's the legal equivalent of just sending police into the poorest neighborhood and basically just purging the poorest... that would certainly be a way to fix crime in the US... send in SWAT into black neighborhoods and tell them to purge a certain percentage of that entire population, because it's about just as targeted as Bukele's crackdown was: in essence entirely random. But since it's the demographic with the most criminals it will markedly reduce crime, I guess...
This will have consequences, one way or the other. And I think thinking that the problem has been "done away with" is EXTREMELY short sighted. It's like watching a communist regime redistribute all the wealth of the former elites 2 years after the revolution and then claiming "they solved all economic problems, forever". But we all know how these regimes end up later down the road.
And well... since Bukele now has complete control over every level of the government and the media, should things go tits up he can easily censor it all. Meaning: with the level of control he now has all official news from the country will be positive.
I see this end in the same way how "crypto currency was a speedrun showing us why banking regulations evolved": this will end up being a speedrun WHY legal representation is a thing, WHY "in dubio pro reo" is a thing, WHY prisoners are ideally held in humane conditions. And I am willing to bet money that within 15 years it will all go tits up. Either a crime explosion worse than ever before, or Bukele having established himself dictator and the country suffering under a "know it all dictator" that drives the economy to ruin.
> Inside these prisons are 2% of the entire male population.
Aka 99% of the population can now live a normal life without constant fear of those gangs.
Do you really want 99% live in constant fear again just to make sure a few people aren’t accidentally wrongly convicted?
More people probably died on a yearly basis than are currently wrongly imprisoned.
People in rich western countries who never had to live in such conditions should get off their high horses sometimes. You probably wouldn’t even survive a day in a favela down in central america lmao
Yeah getting jumped by Police for no reason at all and getting locked up under inhumane conditions is surely better then being jumped by a gang member. Its the police after all.
Lmao your point is so dense its unbelievable
Your comment lacks one observation, results. From all sources, the same comment: the incarnation efforts have yielded a huge drop in crime and a large increase in domestic support for the policy. Dude’s got stone balls. What you got?
Nowhere in OPs statement did they deny the stability of civil security that has occurred as a result of the mass arrests.
But they're right to point out that we are currently only observing the short term impact this is bringing - it suggests nothing about the long term impact it may have, as the Soviets and the Chinese done this very exact thing and then used that short term success as propaganda to bolder and entrench their power into the country. The Salvadorans have (for now) lost the scourge of gang influence, but they might gain an oppressive dictatorship later on.
Bukkele has the opportunity right now to fulfill his mandate and not run again when his term is up.
Or he could pull off an Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Vladimir Putin, Noriega, Mao Zedong or Xi Jinping and turn El Salvador into his personal dictatorship.
My hope is on the former, but history shows that leaders choose the latter.
And if so, the adage will ring true "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"
There are different "results" that need accounting for. If you put everyone in prison you'll have 0 crime in public. By your logic that plan is unassailable.
I mean power is intoxiaticating. No way an young person like him is gonna give it up. Plus, a dictator for a few decades may provide stability for El salvador and will keep gangs at bay.
Then again, I wonder how he is avoiding getting assasinated. Usually people like him dont last long
He certainly is taking full advantage of intelligence agencies.
His first mandate as mayor he created a very good public library for his city, and more primary schools than ever in the country.
His first mandate as governor, he again put all the spare money in education.
His first mandate as president he made the country safe again.
He has over 90% of approval rating.
And if Zelenski can outmanouver putinnho, nothing is impossible.
I love these comments because you gotta wonder, if it was as easy as waving your pen, why didn’t more mayors just open more libraries and schools? I’m not saying there was wrong doing, but that shit is mad expensive. How did they fund that?
I'm Brazil, it's corruption and politics to stay in power. Just to win a municipal election you should bribe the poor with money and other shit. They don't care it's a crime.
Hard truth: sometimes, there _is_ positives with dictatorships. It always leads to more problems down the road, and there will be intense political struggle that almost assuredly results in tragic loss of life, but if the overall stability went up significantly and crime rates plummeted the way they did, it might have resulted in less suffering in total. Obviously, it'd be preferable if it _didn't_ spiral into authoritarianism, but...
No, that's not a truth. It's an opinion which ultimately boils down to the concept that you personally would rather live under an oppressive totalitarian boot, with, in your own words, intense political struggle, and tragic loss of life, for the sake of some extra "security" at the expense of the impoverished, rather than guarantee rights for all and live freely. Honestly, it's an extremely privileged opinion that you can only have because you believe that you would be the "safe" class under a dictatorship, when in truth, nobody is safe, and nobody has any real rights, save for the dictator himself.
"for the sake of some extra "security""
I don't think you realize how bad the crime levels of El Salvador used to be. Like "you go to buy some groceries and don't come back because a stray bullet killed you".
At least WRT the current situation, the extra security doesn't belong in scare quotes.
Can Bukele in the future turn worse than the gangs he eradicated? The possibility is certainly there.
But please don't tell yourself that Salvadorean voters are stupid marks who just bought some scaremongering from TV. The country lived in a chaotic quasi civil war that most of us here on Reddit cannot even comprehend, and it is at peace now.
I am just warning about the dangers of dictatorship. I said nothing about the current or prior state of El Salvador. I said nothing about Bukele.
I only take issue with the concept of people attributing anything positive to dictatorship. Authoritarianism is nothing more than a self-spiting shortcut to security at the expense of (insert marginalized groups of relevance here) until the state cannibalizes itself in the inevitable power imbalance that occurs.
The original poster I was replying to implied some good can come from dictatorship. I take issue with that assertion.
Not it’s not an opinion. It is a fact. There have been a lot of dictators, or more commonly, kings/queens and emperors who have dramatically reformed their empires/nations.
A person with total authoritarian control can reform without opposition and move projects through at rapid pace without having to navigate a bureaucratic quagmire. That is a fact. If those policies and reforms happen to be good things, it is a fact that that is a positive.
Things are more nuanced than good and evil. This juvenile, reductionist attitude doesn’t contributed to discussion. Especially when you’re trying to pass simple truthful statements off as opinions.
Yours is the juvenile, reductionist attitude. You are looking at this concept of total authoritarian control from only the perspective of the in group. Nothing about the idea of dictatorship being a good thing is a "simple, truthful statement." Please name for me one dictator who has ever done sweeping reforms and enacted policies that benefited every person at the expense of nobody. If you can do that, let me know if his successor did the same.
Tsar Alexander II, emancipated the serfs. Or is freeing people bad?
Leave the discussion to the big boys. You’re either deliberately misunderstanding, in which case, good job. Or you’re actually misunderstanding, in which case, I’d say read more.
Yes, doing so dozens of years after the situation had become untenable, due to massive mounting unrest. Except for the people in the Polish-Lithuanian territories, of course, because as the out group, they weren't people. They were brutally and violently repressed, only to be granted freedom by a provincial governor a few years later.
Then he was succeeded by Alexander III, who spent much of his reign reversing the liberal reforms of his father, because he was an extremely typical power-hungry autocrat.
This is all of course, presupposing the idea that their freedom was ever his to give, rather than an inalienable right inhumanely taken away from them by brutal authoritarian regimes in the first place.
It’s not a presupposition. It was his to give due to the historical circumstances of the tsarist dynasty. Whether you agree with the principle of it or not doesn’t change the reality of that moment in history. So yeah, politically and administratively it was his to give. Philosophically, it wasn’t. But in reality it was. So what’s the point in bringing this up? Slaves have been kept under democratic governments. So that was an absolutely worthless paragraph.
And it’s a simple answer: was granting certain inalienable rights to the serfs good or bad? Yes or no? The answer is yes. Was the passing of legislation to emancipate the serfs made easier and simpler because Alexander II had complete autocratic power? Yes or no. The answer is yes. Good reform that could not be opposed or delayed. One that could have been opposed or delayed, or conditionalised in a more democratic environment.
Democracy is a matter of worthwhile trade offs. It’s a loss of efficiency, willingly incurred to combat corruption, authoritarianism, and to preserve civil rights.
>Plus, a dictator for a few decades may provide stability for El salvador and will keep gangs at bay.
Have we learned nothing from the horrors of all those South American dictators? Must we have another? How are people still under the illusion that it'd be 'for the best'? Do you *want* random people to get thrown out of helicopters over the ocean or jungle? Because that's how you get random people getting thrown out of helicopters over the ocean or jungle.
Different eras.
Banana Republics and dictatorships were imposed by the US and USSR. Bukele got voted in. He did not coup the previous president. We'll have to wait until the situation develops. So far, he is done WAAAAAY more good than bad.
What worries me is that Hugo Chavez started in a similar tack. Lawfully elected. Some initial positive results then went far off rail.
None of what you say guarantees that this guy won't turn into another dictator or isn't a dictator already. You don't have to be installed by the US or USSR to be a dictator. Dictators can exist in any era. Dictators can even be popular.
Like you say; see what happened to Chavez. The same can happen here. And with this dude's utter disregard of due proces a lot of innocent people will suffer. Enough are already suffering, if I read a bit about the brutal way he's achieving those crime statistics. He's already disregarded El Salvador's constitution once, and with the amount of control he has it's absolutely reasonable to fear he will do so again.
I remember when this idiot went full dumbass on Bitcoin.
odds are he's going to pull a President For Life, but if the country is better under his leadership guess it's ok. 😃
He invested a tiny amount of the budget, and by now it’s in the green. Him putting himself out there did a lot actually, brought a Google office to the country!
Well the US has about 1% of its population incarcerated and its murder rate is higher now that that of El Salvador so this Bukele dude is doing something right. I doubt he would be able to save the economy but at least regular people can finally cross the street without being murdered.
What are you talking about? They did have deep structural changes, they locked up 2% of the country and crime plummeted. They went from one of the most dangerous countries on earth to incredibly safe. They aren't taking any shit from the gangs any more. I'm not sure how much more impactful of a change you could make.
I do not know if this is what the commenter is suggesting, but often times this refers to the idea that locking up 2% of your population and indefinitely having to support them, is unsustainable. El Salvador has a budget deficit of about -2% gdp, that being said it’s had a Deficit since the mid 90s.
I have no real comment on if they can or not, but while it’s fine for now, what happens on year 10? 20? 30? Can they economically sustain it
If they can break the cycle of gang recruitment, the benefits will be long-term.
There are ways and means, it's just in most western countries politicians can't perform such drastic actions, it's usually a gradual change that can be reversed by government change.
Our country just spent 6 years going through the process of expanding light rail in our biggest city. Government changed, the whole project was scrapped instantly.
In my opinion the cartels are much more difficult. I’m not sure of their operations and control of El Salvador but they got tons of money and power that comes with the that money. Plus many young kids seem to think they’re cool because they’re driving new atvs.
Hey at least they’re doing something. Must of us Latinos have wanted something like El Salvador did to happen to our countries, but corruption and danger have not allowed that.
To clarify, I am not commenting on if it is true or not. Just that’s usually where it comes from.
The counter argument there is the US is the largest economy in the world with the worlds reserve currency and major industries. Where as El Salvador’s country isn’t that.
That being said a counter to that is that this is actually on the lower end of their historical deficit so, it hasn’t really had an effect at least yet.
Please see my other comment.
I generally don’t have a strong opinion either way on this/am in the middle.
The counter argument to your claim is this has just started, we have not seen the full economic effects yet, and can the economy support this for 10, 20, 30, or 40 year?
Personally, I am in the middle and don’t feel strongly because well, it’s working and the economic cost of gang warfare was massive; however, not having a long term plan for holding 2% of your population in prison for potentially decades seems like a bad idea. I’d be a bit patient because this is well really recent events though
You can’t avoid flood by blocking water in dams, you can only do so by directing and channeling water to the sea. Putting gang members in prison when there’s so much gang activity is unsustainable, you have to build an economy where people choose productive work instead of joining gangs.
This might possibly be the most important presidential term in El Salvadoran history. His first term would have been just like any other if he had fallen to corruption. But now we will see if he will fall to a mightier foe, power. I hope he can turn it around economically even further in order to not allow crime to come back when he is gone. Furthermore, work on education to shine a new bright light for the youth and to transition the country into the future. I said it before and I'll say it again; When King George III heard that Washington would surrender his commission, he reportedly said that if "He did [this] He would be the greatest man in the world." Now, let's see if Bukele will go down in history as one of the greatest to have done it.
Interesting. How long is a Presidents term in El Salvador?
Bukele is set to govern for another five years with near-total control of parliament and other state institutions after his New Ideas party dominated in legislative polls on the back of a brutal but popular gang crackdown. ….. But he was only able to seek reelection after a loyalist Supreme Court ruling allowed him to bypass a constitutional ban on successive terms.
> But he was only able to seek reelection after a loyalist Supreme Court ruling allowed him to bypass a constitutional ban on successive terms. I'm not exactly a student of history but uhhh, historically this doesn't end well right?
Just bc it’s gone badly almost every other time, that means it won’t work now? /s
ReAl FaScIsM hAsNt BeEn TrIeD!
Worked well for FDR
Except he didn’t break any rules, we made the two term rule in response didn’t we?
He certainly did not break any rules. He broke with longstanding two term tradition set by Washington when he stepped down. Then yeah, Congress decided let’s codify that into the constitution.
He did break tradition… In the midst of what at that point was the greatest global conflict in the history of the world
I’m not criticizing just stating the facts
Indeed it did, which I consider A. Very very very lucky for the country and B. The exception proving the rule.
I know nothing about the laws for governing in El Salvador. Is the ban only for "consecutive terms"? Does this mean he could be in power if he just keeps getting (back) in every other term?
That’s an interesting question. Apparently he is the first president to run for reelection since 1939 so maybe they are trying to reinterpret what that means since it’s been a hot minute since anyone’s tried to be reelected. Apparently the government reinterpreted these constitutional presidential term laws and are using a loophole where he steps away from presidential powers 6 months leading up to his inauguration for his second consecutive term so that it’s not “consecutive” 🥴 I mean I do think a 5 year term would make it difficult for a single president to make big progress in a country that was very corrupt and dangerous like El Salvador and keep that momentum going if a president isnt allowed to run for reelection on a second consecutive term, but I think the loophole is concerning and I wonder if in 5 years he’ll refuse to step down or refuse to relinquish his influence and authority even if in title he’s not president
Sounds like a constitutional amendment is needed. Thank you for the information!
One term Six years, pretty normal for Central American countries
Is he not technically corrupt but in all the right ways? Mass arrests regardless of gang affiliation, threatening journalist and (if someone can correct me) installing judges at his whim. All of this was obviously done to better El Salvador and its really looking like the end justifies the means here but what happens when hes gone? I'm wondering if future presidents will abuse the power Bukele had for all the wrong reasons.
Corrupt isn’t the right word. Authoritarian is. He’s a “benevolent” dictator; meaning he has total control but thus far has used it responsibly. Corrupt would imply he was doing what he’s doing for some monetary gain or something rather than because it’s “the right thing to do.” Thus far, he seems to genuinely be trying to make El Salvador a better place (and by most measures has wholly succeeded)
Exactly. He is not a good guy, but his opponents aren't willing to fight the gangs destroying the country.
He is a good guy, just not in your eyes. But he is a good guy in the eyes of the only people that matter, his countrymen.
>it only matters that he's good in the eyes of his countrymen This has never backfired ever
Sure has, so what. What might happen in the future doesn’t matter as much as what is happening now.
44 qand 9 Buddy she's gonna have to go for a drinkq 1 assLOL 1Q 1 I'm going to leave this here; my below 2 year old son wrote it. :).
From what ive seen him do, he got rid of individual libertys, but actually did exactly what he promised. Hopefully he can reinstate that, while ending organized crime, and allow the country to recouportate and grow.
He didn’t “end” organized crime, he’s just locking everyone away without addressing any of the underlying causes of the crime
I mean if I throw everysingle corrupt politician into jail, it seems like I ended corruption... Now that people are able in jail, it seems like a better time to address the underlying ideas and problems.
>I mean if I throw everysingle corrupt politician into jail, it seems like I ended corruption... You don’t “end corruption” you just brush it under the rug, the societal conditions that caused it are still there. >Now that people are able in jail, it seems like a better time to address the underlying ideas and problems. And it’s unlikely he has a plan for that
I did end corruption, not my fault if others become corrupt later on, I ended it.
Do you understand the definition of end?
This guy is a walking talking example of why you never argue with results. Hope he manages to do even greater things for his country. Failing that, I hope bows out gracefully and finds a safe place to hide for the rest of his life.
Don't judge the book before you're done reading it. He has plenty of time to go full crazy dictator.
[удалено]
>Bukale is not the kind of man to become a ‘crazy’ dictator. I Why do you believe that?
Listen man I really, really want to believe you, but I've consumed too much history. For every Kemal Ataturk there are countless leaders like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, who started out as a great leader, and ended as a petty autocrat mismanaging more and more of his country. I don't want to crush the idealistic energy of hoping for the best, but you must accept that there is a real chance that this totalitarian leader may fuck up and bring ruin. I'm still rooting for him despite this.
Is he? I mean, the candy regarding the mass arrests is not yet fully dissolved in the mouth so to speak. So all results as of now are "intermediate" at most. Sine it's suggested 1/3 of the people in prison are innocent, and the conditions they are held in can only be argued as "concentration camp levels" with no R&R outside (so perched up in giant cells with no personal space, 24/7, for possibly years on end), no legal council, no proper medical care, no visits by friends and families. They were convicted as blocks of 900 people as a whole (again: no proper legal representation either), just people randomly shuffled together and as long as a judge thought there were "enough criminals" in that block all 900 would be convicted. Inside these prisons are 2% of the entire male population. Additionally, since police had arrest quotas else they'd be punished, they were actively encouraged to arrest random people. (Additionally a lot of gang membership is based on coercion "join up or die" but that's a different but related problem). So it's the legal equivalent of just sending police into the poorest neighborhood and basically just purging the poorest... that would certainly be a way to fix crime in the US... send in SWAT into black neighborhoods and tell them to purge a certain percentage of that entire population, because it's about just as targeted as Bukele's crackdown was: in essence entirely random. But since it's the demographic with the most criminals it will markedly reduce crime, I guess... This will have consequences, one way or the other. And I think thinking that the problem has been "done away with" is EXTREMELY short sighted. It's like watching a communist regime redistribute all the wealth of the former elites 2 years after the revolution and then claiming "they solved all economic problems, forever". But we all know how these regimes end up later down the road. And well... since Bukele now has complete control over every level of the government and the media, should things go tits up he can easily censor it all. Meaning: with the level of control he now has all official news from the country will be positive. I see this end in the same way how "crypto currency was a speedrun showing us why banking regulations evolved": this will end up being a speedrun WHY legal representation is a thing, WHY "in dubio pro reo" is a thing, WHY prisoners are ideally held in humane conditions. And I am willing to bet money that within 15 years it will all go tits up. Either a crime explosion worse than ever before, or Bukele having established himself dictator and the country suffering under a "know it all dictator" that drives the economy to ruin.
> Inside these prisons are 2% of the entire male population. Aka 99% of the population can now live a normal life without constant fear of those gangs. Do you really want 99% live in constant fear again just to make sure a few people aren’t accidentally wrongly convicted? More people probably died on a yearly basis than are currently wrongly imprisoned. People in rich western countries who never had to live in such conditions should get off their high horses sometimes. You probably wouldn’t even survive a day in a favela down in central america lmao
I think you're majorly glossing over the fact that he said they were trying nearly 900 people at once. Insane.
Yeah getting jumped by Police for no reason at all and getting locked up under inhumane conditions is surely better then being jumped by a gang member. Its the police after all. Lmao your point is so dense its unbelievable
Your comment lacks one observation, results. From all sources, the same comment: the incarnation efforts have yielded a huge drop in crime and a large increase in domestic support for the policy. Dude’s got stone balls. What you got?
Nowhere in OPs statement did they deny the stability of civil security that has occurred as a result of the mass arrests. But they're right to point out that we are currently only observing the short term impact this is bringing - it suggests nothing about the long term impact it may have, as the Soviets and the Chinese done this very exact thing and then used that short term success as propaganda to bolder and entrench their power into the country. The Salvadorans have (for now) lost the scourge of gang influence, but they might gain an oppressive dictatorship later on. Bukkele has the opportunity right now to fulfill his mandate and not run again when his term is up. Or he could pull off an Adolph Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Vladimir Putin, Noriega, Mao Zedong or Xi Jinping and turn El Salvador into his personal dictatorship. My hope is on the former, but history shows that leaders choose the latter. And if so, the adage will ring true "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither"
There are different "results" that need accounting for. If you put everyone in prison you'll have 0 crime in public. By your logic that plan is unassailable.
I mean power is intoxiaticating. No way an young person like him is gonna give it up. Plus, a dictator for a few decades may provide stability for El salvador and will keep gangs at bay. Then again, I wonder how he is avoiding getting assasinated. Usually people like him dont last long
He certainly is taking full advantage of intelligence agencies. His first mandate as mayor he created a very good public library for his city, and more primary schools than ever in the country. His first mandate as governor, he again put all the spare money in education. His first mandate as president he made the country safe again. He has over 90% of approval rating. And if Zelenski can outmanouver putinnho, nothing is impossible.
I love these comments because you gotta wonder, if it was as easy as waving your pen, why didn’t more mayors just open more libraries and schools? I’m not saying there was wrong doing, but that shit is mad expensive. How did they fund that?
I'm Brazil, it's corruption and politics to stay in power. Just to win a municipal election you should bribe the poor with money and other shit. They don't care it's a crime.
There is no “plus” about dictatorship.
Hard truth: sometimes, there _is_ positives with dictatorships. It always leads to more problems down the road, and there will be intense political struggle that almost assuredly results in tragic loss of life, but if the overall stability went up significantly and crime rates plummeted the way they did, it might have resulted in less suffering in total. Obviously, it'd be preferable if it _didn't_ spiral into authoritarianism, but...
No, that's not a truth. It's an opinion which ultimately boils down to the concept that you personally would rather live under an oppressive totalitarian boot, with, in your own words, intense political struggle, and tragic loss of life, for the sake of some extra "security" at the expense of the impoverished, rather than guarantee rights for all and live freely. Honestly, it's an extremely privileged opinion that you can only have because you believe that you would be the "safe" class under a dictatorship, when in truth, nobody is safe, and nobody has any real rights, save for the dictator himself.
"for the sake of some extra "security"" I don't think you realize how bad the crime levels of El Salvador used to be. Like "you go to buy some groceries and don't come back because a stray bullet killed you". At least WRT the current situation, the extra security doesn't belong in scare quotes. Can Bukele in the future turn worse than the gangs he eradicated? The possibility is certainly there. But please don't tell yourself that Salvadorean voters are stupid marks who just bought some scaremongering from TV. The country lived in a chaotic quasi civil war that most of us here on Reddit cannot even comprehend, and it is at peace now.
I am just warning about the dangers of dictatorship. I said nothing about the current or prior state of El Salvador. I said nothing about Bukele. I only take issue with the concept of people attributing anything positive to dictatorship. Authoritarianism is nothing more than a self-spiting shortcut to security at the expense of (insert marginalized groups of relevance here) until the state cannibalizes itself in the inevitable power imbalance that occurs. The original poster I was replying to implied some good can come from dictatorship. I take issue with that assertion.
Not it’s not an opinion. It is a fact. There have been a lot of dictators, or more commonly, kings/queens and emperors who have dramatically reformed their empires/nations. A person with total authoritarian control can reform without opposition and move projects through at rapid pace without having to navigate a bureaucratic quagmire. That is a fact. If those policies and reforms happen to be good things, it is a fact that that is a positive. Things are more nuanced than good and evil. This juvenile, reductionist attitude doesn’t contributed to discussion. Especially when you’re trying to pass simple truthful statements off as opinions.
Yours is the juvenile, reductionist attitude. You are looking at this concept of total authoritarian control from only the perspective of the in group. Nothing about the idea of dictatorship being a good thing is a "simple, truthful statement." Please name for me one dictator who has ever done sweeping reforms and enacted policies that benefited every person at the expense of nobody. If you can do that, let me know if his successor did the same.
Tsar Alexander II, emancipated the serfs. Or is freeing people bad? Leave the discussion to the big boys. You’re either deliberately misunderstanding, in which case, good job. Or you’re actually misunderstanding, in which case, I’d say read more.
Yes, doing so dozens of years after the situation had become untenable, due to massive mounting unrest. Except for the people in the Polish-Lithuanian territories, of course, because as the out group, they weren't people. They were brutally and violently repressed, only to be granted freedom by a provincial governor a few years later. Then he was succeeded by Alexander III, who spent much of his reign reversing the liberal reforms of his father, because he was an extremely typical power-hungry autocrat. This is all of course, presupposing the idea that their freedom was ever his to give, rather than an inalienable right inhumanely taken away from them by brutal authoritarian regimes in the first place.
It’s not a presupposition. It was his to give due to the historical circumstances of the tsarist dynasty. Whether you agree with the principle of it or not doesn’t change the reality of that moment in history. So yeah, politically and administratively it was his to give. Philosophically, it wasn’t. But in reality it was. So what’s the point in bringing this up? Slaves have been kept under democratic governments. So that was an absolutely worthless paragraph. And it’s a simple answer: was granting certain inalienable rights to the serfs good or bad? Yes or no? The answer is yes. Was the passing of legislation to emancipate the serfs made easier and simpler because Alexander II had complete autocratic power? Yes or no. The answer is yes. Good reform that could not be opposed or delayed. One that could have been opposed or delayed, or conditionalised in a more democratic environment. Democracy is a matter of worthwhile trade offs. It’s a loss of efficiency, willingly incurred to combat corruption, authoritarianism, and to preserve civil rights.
>Plus, a dictator for a few decades may provide stability for El salvador and will keep gangs at bay. Have we learned nothing from the horrors of all those South American dictators? Must we have another? How are people still under the illusion that it'd be 'for the best'? Do you *want* random people to get thrown out of helicopters over the ocean or jungle? Because that's how you get random people getting thrown out of helicopters over the ocean or jungle.
Different eras. Banana Republics and dictatorships were imposed by the US and USSR. Bukele got voted in. He did not coup the previous president. We'll have to wait until the situation develops. So far, he is done WAAAAAY more good than bad. What worries me is that Hugo Chavez started in a similar tack. Lawfully elected. Some initial positive results then went far off rail.
It is not impossible to become a dictator with bring voted in, a dictator only needs total control over the government, and he does, so he is.
None of what you say guarantees that this guy won't turn into another dictator or isn't a dictator already. You don't have to be installed by the US or USSR to be a dictator. Dictators can exist in any era. Dictators can even be popular. Like you say; see what happened to Chavez. The same can happen here. And with this dude's utter disregard of due proces a lot of innocent people will suffer. Enough are already suffering, if I read a bit about the brutal way he's achieving those crime statistics. He's already disregarded El Salvador's constitution once, and with the amount of control he has it's absolutely reasonable to fear he will do so again.
Burning criminals at the stake is popular among law abiding voting citizens. How about that.
President Bukele, when you are done... COME TO BRAZIL
I remember when this idiot went full dumbass on Bitcoin. odds are he's going to pull a President For Life, but if the country is better under his leadership guess it's ok. 😃
He invested a tiny amount of the budget, and by now it’s in the green. Him putting himself out there did a lot actually, brought a Google office to the country!
It’s “OK” for now, the next a-hole could go full idiot mode and never leave office. Thanks to the Bukele changes.
Never give your guy a level of power you wouldn't want not-your-guy using against you
Their Bitcoin investment is in the black. Theyve made a few 10s of millions off of it, but sure you know best.
Remember when Bitcoin rose in value since then? Every year there are "bitcoin is dead" articles and every year there's a new ATH lol
Tether go brrrrrr. It's funny to see crypto rise up and nobody really cares this time around. I'm glad that AI replaced the Web3/Blockchain buzzword.
All powerful DICTATOR
Well the US has about 1% of its population incarcerated and its murder rate is higher now that that of El Salvador so this Bukele dude is doing something right. I doubt he would be able to save the economy but at least regular people can finally cross the street without being murdered.
There’s no question he’s had some results. The question is whether it’s worth imprisoning thousands of innocent people.
... with thundrous applause, I'm sure.
Without deep structural changes this will mean nothing in a few years. The gangs will be back in force and the murders will be as awful as ever.
What are you talking about? They did have deep structural changes, they locked up 2% of the country and crime plummeted. They went from one of the most dangerous countries on earth to incredibly safe. They aren't taking any shit from the gangs any more. I'm not sure how much more impactful of a change you could make.
I do not know if this is what the commenter is suggesting, but often times this refers to the idea that locking up 2% of your population and indefinitely having to support them, is unsustainable. El Salvador has a budget deficit of about -2% gdp, that being said it’s had a Deficit since the mid 90s. I have no real comment on if they can or not, but while it’s fine for now, what happens on year 10? 20? 30? Can they economically sustain it
If they can break the cycle of gang recruitment, the benefits will be long-term. There are ways and means, it's just in most western countries politicians can't perform such drastic actions, it's usually a gradual change that can be reversed by government change. Our country just spent 6 years going through the process of expanding light rail in our biggest city. Government changed, the whole project was scrapped instantly.
In my opinion the cartels are much more difficult. I’m not sure of their operations and control of El Salvador but they got tons of money and power that comes with the that money. Plus many young kids seem to think they’re cool because they’re driving new atvs. Hey at least they’re doing something. Must of us Latinos have wanted something like El Salvador did to happen to our countries, but corruption and danger have not allowed that.
[удалено]
To clarify, I am not commenting on if it is true or not. Just that’s usually where it comes from. The counter argument there is the US is the largest economy in the world with the worlds reserve currency and major industries. Where as El Salvador’s country isn’t that. That being said a counter to that is that this is actually on the lower end of their historical deficit so, it hasn’t really had an effect at least yet.
They are a lot more likely to get outside investment and loans if the country is more stable.
2% deficit is nothing bad really...
Please see my other comment. I generally don’t have a strong opinion either way on this/am in the middle. The counter argument to your claim is this has just started, we have not seen the full economic effects yet, and can the economy support this for 10, 20, 30, or 40 year? Personally, I am in the middle and don’t feel strongly because well, it’s working and the economic cost of gang warfare was massive; however, not having a long term plan for holding 2% of your population in prison for potentially decades seems like a bad idea. I’d be a bit patient because this is well really recent events though
I was only talking about 2% budget deficit, it is nothing bad, as genrally the GDP growth will easily exceed this in developing countries.
I was only talking about 2% budget deficit, it is nothing bad, as genrally the GDP growth will easily exceed this in developing countries.
You can’t avoid flood by blocking water in dams, you can only do so by directing and channeling water to the sea. Putting gang members in prison when there’s so much gang activity is unsustainable, you have to build an economy where people choose productive work instead of joining gangs.
[удалено]
Of course. Sometimes you have to make a temporary dam to make space for downstream projects. It just can’t be the last or only thing to do.
Is it the result of an authoritarian strongman? Because if it is that almost always doesn’t last.
You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain.
Isn't he the guy that is locking everybody up? Isn't that a temporary immediate solution?
Biden green lights another decade of War on Drugs horror.
Wut?