President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador responded to the murders of 60 people last weekend by authorizing police and military to use “lethal force” against gang members who threaten the safety of authorities or citizens. After a short period of peace in the streets, the weekend of April 24 was the deadliest since Bukele took office last year. This latest policy announcement follows a pattern of increasingly despotic actions taken under the umbrella of the Coronavirus response.
The young and charismatic leader touted himself as a fresh alternative during his campaign, and promised he would begin a “new era” in El Salvador. However, his frustration with gangs and the government has pushed him over the autocratic line. His harsh and ineffective response to the Coronavirus pandemic and his disregard for the rule of law has caught the attention of human rights organizations around the world.
On April 30, in an open letter published by Amnesty International, a group of human rights organizations condemned Bukele’s actions and called for a full policy reversal. They recognize that some level of lockdown must be enacted to protect citizens against COVID-19, but claim it has gone too far. New and increasingly aggressive changes are published via Bukele’s Twitter account almost daily. Any citizen caught violating quarantine will be placed in containment centers for 30 days. Citizens who are forced to leave their homes are often impoverished and are therefore disproportionately affected by such policies.
The Supreme Court has attempted to curb Bukele’s efforts, as his policies are unconstitutional. He defied their ruling and accused them of undermining anti-Coronavirus efforts, tweeting that “five people will not decide the death of hundreds of thousands Salvadorans.” Jose Miguel Vivanco, the Americas director at Human Rights Watch responded by saying “Bukele acts as if the COVID-19 pandemic justifies removing the Supreme Court’s critical role as a check on rights abuses by the executive branch… In this world, he decides who is guilty or innocent.”
Since the initiation of lockdown procedures, gangs have taken it upon themselves to enforce social distancing. The Los Angeles Times interviewed a young gang member, who claims that though many citizens are out of work, the gangs will continue to collect debts and punish those who cannot pay. The article claims the gangs’ power holds more sway than the state’s in many areas. Bukele’s attack on the gangs themselves is his attempt to quell unrest—but also to regain this power.
Gang members in prison have also been targeted by the government. Prison authorities claim attacks are being conducted by some among the 12,000 incarcerated gang members. To prevent this, members of rival gangs have been forced into crowded and unsanitary cells, according to CBS News. The motives behind the gang violence are unclear, but it does not justify the human rights abuses led by the president.
The conclusion of Amnesty International’s letter claimed “Our region, and the world at large, will continue to grapple with the threat posed by this pandemic and its devastating effects. It remains the responsibility of world leaders such as yourself, President Bukele, to ensure that the rights of all persons are protected, without exception, throughout the public health emergency and hereafter.” If Bukele does not heed the ruling of his own court, it is unlikely that he will respect the condemnation of human rights groups.
Johnny Wright Sol, a former congressman and the President of the centrist political party Nuestro Tiempo, claims that opposing political parties are beginning unprecedented discourse as they unite to end Bukele’s tirade. There is hope that if they can work within the constitutional framework, a government majority may be able to relax the new policies. This approach may be the strongest, but it will also likely take the longest amount of time to accomplish.
Michael Kozak of the US State Department’s Bureau of Western Hemisphere affairs claims that they have been watching the situation in El Salvador, but that the situation boils down to a difference in opinion on how to best handle the Coronavirus response. Differences in opinion can be respected, human rights abuses and disregard for the constitution should not be.
