Taking into account the previous analysis, it is possible to conclude that, despite the similar contexts of Colombia and El Salvador, and the similar inputs in terms of challenges, the outcomes were significantly different due to the geographical and political contexts. However, the decisive difference lies in the influence derived from the presidential system, which can orient policies in different directions.
While Nayib Bukele is a very popular and democratically elected president who has accomplished several important reforms in El Salvador, his legacy is increasingly seen as pushing the country’s democracy in the wrong direction, toward more autocracy and less democracy. Despite his achievements, some of Bukele's decisions …show more content…
The balance between maintaining public security and upholding democratic norms and human rights remains a contentious and critical issue.
In El Salvador, the strong presidentialism under Bukele led to the implementation of "Mano Dura" policies, which have been criticized for human rights violations and unsustainability. These policies reflect the president's significant control over the legislative process and the ability to enforce stringent measures swiftly, even if this means massive violations of human rights.
President Nayib Bukele is also showing increasingly authoritarian tendencies, using troops to intimidate Congress and packing the Supreme Court to overturn presidential term limits, all while maintaining high approval ratings. He has controversially declared himself "the coolest dictator in the world," a statement that encapsulates his unorthodox and provocative approach to governance. Bukele's administration has been marked by a significant consolidation of power, including the removal of judges and the attorney general who opposed his policies, effectively undermining the independence of the judiciary by applying a modern version of “Mano Dura” with neo populist tendencies in order to reach his objective of eradicating Maras from El