WP3- Resolved to Write: What Do You Imagine Having to Say—and How Will You Say It?
Part 1
Rethinking Nayib Bukele's Success: Questioning the Cost of Extreme
Nayib Bukele, El Salvador’s 43rd president, has gained major global attention for his successful transformation of ElSalvador from the world’s murder capital to the safest country in Latin America. In 2019, Bukele was elected as a political disruptor, making him the youngest head of state in Latin America and the region’s first millennial leader. His newly founded New Ideas party ended 30 years of two-party control in the country from the right-wing Nationalist Republican Alliance (ARENA) and leftist Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN). Filled with youthful energy and promises to transform El Salvador, Bukele’s new political movement provided Salvadorans with a unique alternative to the presidents that preceded. After having been plagued by gang violence and corruption for so many years, all Salvadorans wanted was significant change, and that’s exactly what Bukele delivered to them.
Ever since he came to power, Bukele has established many different legal measures that have drastically reduced crime rates. If you look at the statistics, you could see how most of the tactics he has used have produced immense changes in El Salvador’s gang activity. However, many of the measures Bukele has taken have not only been extreme, but they’ve raised concerns about human rights violations and the restriction of civil liberties. Different countries and international organizations, such as the United Nations, have criticized Bukele’s legal measures, making people question the trade-off between security and fundamental freedoms.
Being from a Latin American country who has also greatly struggled with crime and corruption, I’ve come across many people who praise Bukele and what he has done in El Salvador. One of these people being my father who loves talking about all the success Bukele has had in reducing crime rates. Recently, the gang situation in Ecuador has been pretty bad so many Ecuadorians, like my father, have begun saying that someone like Bukele and with his tactics could be the solution to Ecuador’s problems and other Latin American countries. But what these people haven’t considered is the extremity of the legal measures that have been imposed. All they look at are the different news articles and statistics highlighting how El Salvador has become the safest country in Latin America, and they fail to consider whether this increased security is worth the sacrifice of civil liberties and democratic principles. So in order to determine whether the tradeoff is worth it, we must first look at the different legal measures more in depth.
One of Bukele’s most notable legal measures is the state of emergency. Following the gang massacre where 62 people were killed in one day, the government of El Salvador and Bukele decided to enact a one month state of emergency which restricts the right to gather, to be informed of rights and have access to a lawyer. By giving government authorities free rein in the war against the gangs, the state of emergency became very successful in arresting and debilitating many gang members. This success ultimately led to the state of emergency being extended to 20 consecutive months. But the issue with this measure was that a lot of the arrests were often based purely on appearance or social backgrounds, leading to thousands of innocent people getting arrested since there was no due process. Not only were they wrongfully convicted, but there was nothing they could do about it since during the state of emergency everybody that was incarcerated was basically stripped of their constitutional rights.
As a result, the question of whether the trade off is worth it becomes very important. Does the arrest of over 70 thousand gang members justify the use of undemocratic principles and all the people being wrongfully incarcerated. In the eyes of most Salvadorans, the answer would be yes. Bukele and his tactics are very highly regarded by Salvadorans being that his approval rating is over 90% and that in his re-election he won with 83% of the votes. Most of them see what he is doing through his extreme tactics as a “miracle” that not only gives them hope but serves as an example for other Latin American countries in similar situations. People in El Salvador were victims of gang extortion and killings on a daily basis, so having someone completely change lead to Bukele having immense support.
On the other hand there are people who are not only critics of Buekele’s harsh tactics, but victims. For example, in the ARTE documentary, we get to see the perspective of different families who had relatives arrested with no proof that they were gang-affiliated. One of them was even a pregnant woman who was taken away from her family based purely on her living in an area with a lot of gang activity. Most of these family members have given up on asking for their relatives to be freed. All they want is to know that they are alive and well since once incarcerated, the government doesn’t let them see anyone. The documentary also included an interview with a journalist who talked about his experience with the El Salvador government silencing him when tried to speak out about the wrongs in Bukele’s plan. We even get to hear the point of view of an ex-cop who admits to having committed human rights violations by wrongfully arresting many Salvadorans just because they had a specific quota of people they had to detain per day in order to push the statistics.
By viewing the silenced perspectives of these people we get to analyze both sides of the story. Bukele has been an extremely impactful president in El Salvador. The change he has brought is something that other leaders around the world dream to achieve, but once again the issue comes with people not considering how he was able to be so successful and the measures he took to get him there. In addition to the state of emergency, El Salvador’s new CECOT prison is another way in which Bukele has been able to continue his crackdown of the gangs. Holding up to 40,000 inmates, the prison is the biggest prison in all of Latin America. But like other parts of Bukele’s security policy, this prison has faced lots of backlash due to the horrible conditions it puts inmates in. From sleeping on bare metal and eating without their bare hands, to not being able to go outside and allegedly being tortured by guards, prisoners inside the CECOT prison are subject to many human rights abuses. Even so, this maximum security prison is one of Bukele’s proudest accomplishments because of how it symbolizes a new era of security in El Salvador and the fall of gang control.
Now that we have looked at the 20 month state of emergency and the CECOT prison, we can understand why Bukele’s plan, although successful, has faced a lot of backlash from different countries and international organizations. So what side is more important? Are the statistics showing murders in El Salvador dropping by 70% more important than the stories from the families whose relatives were imprisoned with no reasoning? That’s something that depends on one's beliefs and priorities. Some people believe that the total change which El Salvador has undergone is incredible and without these strict and extreme legal measures it would’ve never been achievable. Some believe that the measures which Bukele has taken are way too extreme and shouldn’t be in place because of how they've taken away the liberties and rights of Salvadorans. Others may agree with both and feel that addressing crime is undoubtedly the priority, but the measures taken should uphold more democratic principles. The only problem comes when somebody is blinded by solely statistics or critics and fails to consider both sides of Bukele’s plan and its impact on El Salvador.
I had previously mentioned that I’ve come across some people recently from Ecuador who praise Bukele and believe what he’s doing is amazing and should be done in other Latin American countries. Now after looking at the statistics and all critics that come with Bukele’s measures, I urge these people to critically evaluate this trade-off. Especially when making the assumption that these measures would be successful in other countries, I wonder if these people would be willing to give up their human rights and civil liberties for decreased crime and gang violence. Although these tactics were widely successful in El Salvador, every country has different conditions. Whether it’s the severity of the gang violence or the legal measures already in place, trying to emulate Bukele’s tactics and plan can have negative outcomes such as increased authoritarianism and decreased civil liberties. Some leaders may just replicate the oppressive tactics and not even achieve decreased crime. The general population could also react differently in countries that are more democratic than El Salvador.
So the central question still remains: is the trade-off worth it? If you asked me, I would say that it depends on how critical the situation is in one's country. El Salvador, for example, was in probably the worst situation a country could be in with gang control and corruption. I still vividly remember people talking about how powerful MS-13 was and saying how El Salvador was the most dangerous place on earth, even worse than like warzones. In contrast, nowadays my sister literally works in El Salvador and the first thing people say to her is how safe it is which proves the significant impact Bukele has caused on how people view El Salvador. The change Bukele has caused is undeniable, but like I said before, I’m not so sure if the harshness and severity of his legal measures were worth this change. Could he have achieved the same change without violating human rights and civil liberties? We would never know. But what we do know is that when looking at an issue this complex, it is essential to analyze the pros and cons of all sides involved, especially when in pursuit of a better future for one’s country.
Part 2
One of the main reasons I chose to write this paper as an op-ed was because of the freedom which it gave me to be somewhat informal while writing about a serious topic. When I originally chose Nayib Bukele and El Salvador as the topics I was going to write about, I wasn’t sure what I specifically wanted to delve into. It wasn’t until I started doing my research that I was able to find something which I thought was worth writing about. This being the whole idea of their being a trade off to Bukele’s tactics and how people usually just consider his successes and not the extremity of his measures.
Once I knew what I wanted to write about, I found that the only genre that really worked for me was one in which I could express my own opinion. Especially since I also hoped to connect this to my personal experiences with my dad and other people in Ecuador who are sympathetic towards Bukele and believe that if we had someone like him or if we instituted his tactics, they would be successful.
From what I’ve seen in New York Times opinion articles, op-eds stylistic and formatting conventions usually include a strong engaging opening and small concise paragraphs that connect to one another and develop the argument throughout the piece. For one opinion piece I read that was also about El Salvador and Bukele, the format and style met these conventions pretty well, so I tried to make mine similar.
The main convention I focused on was the development of my argument as my essay went on. I tried to in a way make it like I was having a conversation with the reader since I first introduced a question/argument and as I went one I used evidence and analysis to prove my point while also asking more questions. Asking questions was something essential for my piece since the whole purpose was to make the reader consider the trade off of Bukele’s measures. This is another reason why I chose the op-ed genre since I can add the informality of providing questions.
As far as the other conventions, I tried my best to meet them but it was difficult. My opening, for example, was interesting but not that engaging. Keeping the paragraphs concise was also pretty difficult since I felt like a lot of the information had to stay together in order for the argument to make sense. But overall I believe that my paragraphs did flow well together and helped get across what I wanted to say.
Op-eds generally address a large audience that are interested in a specific topic. This audience usually is open to hear new perspectives and possibly change their own views based on what they read. For my op-ed, my audience was people like my father and others I’ve interacted with who praise Bukele and claim that someone like him and with his tactics would solve the corruption and gang problems of other Latin American countries. Since they are already familiar with the topic, I can focus my writing more on getting them to question and consider their current stance rather than informing them further on what’s happening in El Salvador.
I chose this audience for my op-ed because it was a group of people which I’ve personally interacted with a lot recently. I talk about this in my piece but with Ecuador’s gang situation getting worse, more people are becoming fans of Bukele. Which is why I wanted to write this piece since I hope to show this to my father and others and make them question their current beliefs. My goal wasn’t to undermine what Bukele has done or make people not support him. I am a fan of his and believe how he’s transformed El Salvador is amazing, but many people are often too quick to assume that if something works in one country, it would in another. People are also often blinded by pure statistics and don’t consider how regular Salvadoran citizens are being affected by the legal measures imposed.
Ultimately, through my op-ed I hope to bring about the question of whether the trade-off between giving up one's civil liberties and human rights is worth it to decrease crime rates and gang violence. I want my audience to think about this trade-off when reading my piece and consider both sides before claiming that they want these tactics implemented in their own countries. I don’t want to sway them one way or the other, all I want is for them to begin considering the realities of the situation and the consequences of the legal measures before giving so much praise to Bukele and his success.