El Salvador Ends Term Limits, Letting President Bukele Seek Re-Election Indefinitely

wing2000 · Saturday at 7:18 AM

Salvadorn President Bukele, age 44, may be around for a long time....

"Lawmakers in El Salvador abolished presidential term limits on Thursday, paving the way for President Nayib Bukele, who has aided President Trump’s deportation efforts and whose government has jailed tens of thousands in its crackdown on gangs and civil rights groups, to run for re-election indefinitely.

The change was among several amendments to the country’s constitution approved by the National Assembly, where Mr. Bukele’s party holds a supermajority. Lawmakers also extended a president’s term in office from five years to six, amending five articles with 57 votes in favor and three opposed, the National Assembly said on social media."

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/01/world/americas/el-salvador-bukele-term-limits.html

ozso · Saturday at 11:17 AM

Good.

El Salvador has experienced a significant decrease in its crime rate, particularly in homicides, following a state of exception implemented in March 2022. The homicide rate has reportedly decreased by more than 80% since then, according to the National Civil Police. This decrease is largely attributed to the government's strong anti-gang policies, often referred to as the "Bukele Model".

RocksInMyHead · Saturday at 11:28 AM

ozso said:
Good.

What do Bukele's accomplishments have to do with this? One would hope that the people of El Salvador would continue to elect leaders who can continue Bukele's legacy, if that's what they desire, once his term is up. That's one of the hallmarks of a democratic society. The idea that a single person is the only one who can fix things leads down the path to authoritarian dictatorship.

Pommer · Saturday at 3:12 PM

RocksInMyHead said:
What do Bukele's accomplishments have to do with this? One would hope that the people of El Salvador would continue to elect leaders who can continue Bukele's legacy, if that's what they desire, once his term is up. That's one of the hallmarks of a democratic society. The idea that a single person is the only one who can fix things leads down the path to authoritarian dictatorship.

If the people desire an authoritarian dictatorship, then they’ll vote one in…then never have to be bothered with this pesky “voting” business again!
Win-win!

ozso · Saturday at 11:23 PM

Pommer said:
If the people desire an authoritarian dictatorship, then they’ll vote one in…then never have to be bothered with this pesky “voting” business again!
Win-win!

Authoritarian leadership seems to get better results than lackadaisical leadership. We've seen how poorly lackadaisical leadership played out in El Salvador, and how poorly it plays out in the parts of the US run by lackadaisical leaders. The removal of term limits doesn't mean the removal of voting. It just means the people don't have to lose a really good leader because their few years are up. They can keep approving them to stay in office.

Nithavela · Saturday at 11:50 PM

RocksInMyHead said:
What do Bukele's accomplishments have to do with this? One would hope that the people of El Salvador would continue to elect leaders who can continue Bukele's legacy, if that's what they desire, once his term is up. That's one of the hallmarks of a democratic society. The idea that a single person is the only one who can fix things leads down the path to authoritarian dictatorship.

Plenty of strong democracies also have no term limits. Conversely, if a society elects authoritarian leaders, no term limits will stop them.

Pommer · Sunday at 12:04 AM

ozso said:
Authoritarian leadership seems to get better results than lackadaisical leadership.

This doesn’t make authoritarian leadership any more “desirable”.
We’ve always have had a three-steps forward, two-steps-backward, kind of political zeitgeist.
Having an efficient government is nigh impossible with our current system; but we’ve only had it for 249 years.

ozso said:
We've seen how poorly lackadaisical leadership played out in El Salvador, and how poorly it plays out in the parts of the US run by lackadaisical leaders.

But now it’s “better” by having an unfireable President who also just happens to be the de facto warden of an international prison?

ozso said:
The removal of term limits doesn't mean the removal of voting. It just means the people don't have to lose a really good leader because their few years are up. They can keep approving them to stay in office.

Just like in Russia and China, gee, really, all the cool superpowers! (And Cuba and DPRK)

linux.poet · Sunday at 1:00 AM

The only true test is whether Bukele will step down if his people chose to un-elect him in the future. Until his people decide that they don’t want him around, we have no idea what the intentions of his heart are.

What we do know is that he has moved boldly and aggressively to eliminate hostile forces in his own country and earn his people’s trust. And his people badly need a leader they can trust. Whether Bukele can keep said trust or accept when he has lost it remains to be seen.

ozso · Sunday at 2:08 AM

There's no reason for concern.

ozso · Sunday at 2:12 AM

Pommer said:
This doesn’t make authoritarian leadership any more “desirable”.
We’ve always have had a three-steps forward, two-steps-backward, kind of political zeitgeist.
Having an efficient government is nigh impossible with our current system; but we’ve only had it for 249 years.

But now it’s “better” by having an unfireable President who also just happens to be the de facto warden of an international prison?

Just like in Russia and China, gee, really, all the cool superpowers! (And Cuba and DPRK)

Except for Russia those are all communist countries. From what hear Russia isn't a bad country to live in. I'll have to look into it, but I'm guessing you don't have to weave your way though passed out junkies when walking through town.

DaisyDay · Sunday at 7:58 AM

ozso said:
Except for Russia those are all communist countries. From what hear Russia isn't a bad country to live in. I'll have to look into it, but I'm guessing you don't have to weave your way though passed out junkies when walking through town.

I have no idea why you would guess that Russia has no passed out junkies its towns. Singapore and Rodrigo Duterte's Philippines have the sort of law enforcement you seem to admire.

Bob Crowley · Sunday at 8:31 AM

DaisyDay said:
I have no idea why you would guess that Russia has no passed out junkies its towns. Singapore and Rodrigo Duterte's Philippines have the sort of law enforcement you seem to admire.

Years ago I knew a chap who'd migrated from Singapore to Austalia as a schoolboy, probably around 1960 or a bit later.

He told me that when Lee Kuan Yew took over the government of Singapore in 1959, the gangs in Singapore made the New York gangs look like boy scouts. His father sent him to Australia to get him away from the gang warfare. As a middle class kid he was always being picked on by gang members from the surrounding slums.

But he didn't like Lee Kuan Yew as he lost a couple of friends due to his ruthless methods. The gangs mostly used knives and machetes but didn't have many guns. One of Yew's policies was to send in police squads dressed like gang members. They'd start a fight, and when gangs got involved they started shooting. He also introduced the death penalty. Apparently Yew was impressed by the lack of crime when the Japanese occupied Singapore in WWII as they ruthlessly suppressed criminal activity.

So when he got in power he did the same thing - treated crime harshly.

The chap I knew used to act as a lookout on smuggling boats to or from Malaysia. Customs were on the take, and some token boats were sacrificed to give the impression that they were doing their job.

Lew Kuan Yew inherited a criminal state, and cleaned it up. The hardline policy towards crime, drugs and murder that Singapore has today is a continuing result of his legacy. It is also quite prosperous, despite having very little in the way of natural resources. It has made use of human capital.

It's population density is about 8,400 people per square kilometre, one of the highest in the world.

ViaCrucis · Monday at 9:30 AM

ozso said:
Authoritarian leadership seems to get better results

At the expense of liberty.

-CryptoLutheran

ozso · Monday at 9:50 AM

ViaCrucis said:
At the expense of liberty.

-CryptoLutheran

What liberty do you truly expect to lose?

ViaCrucis · Monday at 9:41 PM

ozso said:
What liberty do you truly expect to lose?

Under an authoritarian regime?

I mean just off the top of my head...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

That list is hardly exhaustive, but those are examples of what I'd consider pressing in regard to myself. If I were to include the liberties of my neighbors, I'd include the 15th Amendment, 19th Amendment, and 26th Amendment as well. Again, not exhaustive of course.

It feels weird having to explain why a person would be against an authoritarian in power. Clearly we've been taking democracy for granted for too long.

-CryptoLutheran

ozso · Monday at 9:46 PM

ViaCrucis said:
Under an authoritarian regime?

I mean just off the top of my head...

That list is hardly exhaustive, but those are examples of what I'd consider pressing in regard to myself. If I were to include the liberties of my neighbors, I'd include the 15th Amendment, 19th Amendment, and 26th Amendment as well. Again, not exhaustive of course.

It feels weird having to explain why a person would be against an authoritarian in power. Clearly we've been taking democracy for granted for too long.

-CryptoLutheran

You truly expect all of that will be lost between now and 2029?

ViaCrucis · Monday at 9:55 PM

ozso said:
You truly expect all of that will be lost between now and 2029?

I answered the question of what freedoms I would expect to lose under an authoritarian. I suppose the added condition is: to what degree the authoritarian is successful in being an authoritarian. At the moment I remain optimistic in a Judiciary that is willing to fight on behalf of the People; and there is a major election coming in 2026 that will be incredibly decisive. But simply voting the boot-lickers out of Congress is insufficient, a strong Legislative with an actual spine is needed--and the current bag of mixed nuts of Republicans and Democrats are, on the whole, pretty spineless.

I haven't given up faith in American democracy just yet. I think there is still time and opportunity to save the Republic. But it's going to a steep uphill climb with a lot of sweat, tears, and prayer. The fight against fascism and for the soul of America is very much alive right now.

-CryptoLutheran

ozso · Monday at 10:59 PM

Nithavela said:
Plenty of strong democracies also have no term limits. Conversely, if a society elects authoritarian leaders, no term limits will stop them.

Some people confuse authoritative, as in strong leader, with despot.

7thKeeper · Monday at 11:01 PM

ozso said:
You truly expect all of that will be lost between now and 2029?

And the goal posts get moved.

GoldenBoy89 · Monday at 11:15 PM

That dude gives me the creeps.

El Salvador Ends Term Limits, Letting President Bukele Seek Re-Election Indefinitely

E pluribus unum

✦

God is innocent; Noah built on a floodplain!

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

✦

you're in charge you can do it just get louis

CoPacEtiC SkEpTic

out of love attunement

✦

✦

I Did Nothing Wrong!! ~~Team Deep State

Well-Known Member

Confessional Lutheran

✦

Confessional Lutheran

✦

Confessional Lutheran

✦

Venture life, Burn your Dread

We're Still Here

Similar threads