Is the Autocratic Political System Smoother and More Inclusive Than the Democratic System In El Salvador?

Abstract

This paper analyzes the shift from democratic to autocratic rule in El Salvador, focusing on the period before and after the presidency of Nayib Bukele. It challenges the conventional view of autocracy as inherently oppressive, arguing that Bukele's administration has brought relative peace and stability to a nation previously plagued by gang violence and economic instability under democracy. The analysis explores three pillars of Bukele's governance—centralization of power, limited freedom, and nationalism—that have contributed to reducing El Salvador's homicide rate and enhancing social order. While democratic governments in El Salvador struggled with issues like gang violence, unemployment, and poverty, the Bukele administration's authoritarian measures have led to a significant decline in crime and economic improvement. However, the paper also highlights concerns regarding human rights abuses, loss of civil liberties, and the risk of long-term political suppression. By comparing the outcomes of both political systems, the paper seeks to shed light on whether autocracy, in this case, offers a more effective governance model than democracy, especially in addressing complex social challenges.