What’s Behind Bukele’s Attacks on El Salvador’s Peace Accords

Saturday, January 16, was the 29th anniversary of the signing of the peace accords that brought an end to El Salvador’s civil war.

A 29th anniversary is not normally a special occasion, or a call for deep reflection. But this is an unusual moment, and one that calls for comment, given developments in El Salvador, and the pending changes in U.S.-Salvadoran relations as the Biden administration takes power.

In El Salvador, President Bukele, in a contentious speech on December 16, called the accords a “farce.” On January 16, the president tweeted that the day would no longer be a commemoration of the agreements that ended the twelve-year civil war, which he called an agreement between corrupt actors; instead, it would be a remembrance of those who had died or been disappeared during the conflict.

Bukele’s comments are sad but not surprising. They fit with his general dismissal of Salvadoran political leaders, and the history, which preceded him. He won office on a campaign that rejected the political parties of both the left and the right as corrupt, incompetent, and exhausted, and projected an image of youth and disgust with the past. 

There’s plenty to criticize about the political leaders who have led El Salvador over the last three decades. Corruption has flourished; economic growth has been slow, and inequality has been glaring; insecurity, especially gang violence, has gotten worse.

But in dismissing the peace accords, President Bukele is rejecting not only the failures of his predecessors, but the institutional foundation of Salvadoran democracy.

El Salvador’s peace accords not only brought an end to twelve years of civil war. They created a framework for a more open and democratic society. They redefined the mandate of the armed forces, which had dominated political life for decades, limiting their role to national defense and denying them a role in politics or internal security. 

The accords eliminated the internal security forces that had, for decades, repressed political opponents and participated in death squad violence, and created a new civilian police force that was intended to be professional and apolitical. They called for reforms to the judiciary and the attorney general’s office. 

Certainly the implementation of all these agreements has been mixed, and much remains to be done. But El Salvador went from being a country where government opponents feared for their lives, went into hiding, or took up arms to protect themselves and advance their views, to a country where political disagreements were openly expressed, where politicians with very different visions for the country could campaign without fear of reprisal, where investigative journalism—in print and online—grew dramatically.    

In a country where high-level corruption once ran unchecked, anti-corruption efforts have shown some progress. Former presidents, who would have once been absolutely immune from prosecution, are now under indictment, in exile or in jail. In recent years, the constitutional branch of the Supreme Court has shown an impressive degree of independence, and stood up to political parties, the legislature, and the executive branch on repeated occasions.  

That’s not enough to make El Salvador a fully functioning democratic country. And it’s not enough by itself to make the economy work better and more inclusively.

But it’s a dramatic change from what El Salvador was before the accords, and it’s a foundation that needs to be built up, not torn down.  

That’s why more than a hundred prominent individuals, including some of the signers of the peace accords, international diplomats who supported the peace process, historians, academics, and others, signed an open letter to President Bukele criticizing his dismissal of the accords, and calling for their implementation. Online, social media users have taken to the hashtag #ProhibidoOlvidarSV, to remember the horrors of the civil war and object to Bukele’s dismissal of the peace accords.

It’s not just a matter of President Bukele’s words. Sadly, President Bukele’s actions over the last year seem directed at tearing down some of those institutional pillars. 

The president has increasingly empowered the armed forces. In February, the president sought to resolve a dispute with the National Assembly by bringing armed soldiers with him to the assembly chamber to demand that the body accept his proposal and his deadline.  Over the summer, the president backed the armed forces when its leadership refused to comply with an order from the Constitutional Court to open its archives as a judge looked for evidence in the El Mozote massacre trial.  

The president has repeatedly defied orders from the constitutional chamber of the Supreme Court on the El Mozote case, on his authority to order the detention of quarantine violators without due process, on the need to comply with decisions of the National Assembly. 

In doing this, Bukele has repeatedly undermined the separation of powers and the checks imposed on his authority by the legislature and the courts.

His dismissal of the peace accords—rejecting the institutional framework set in place to ensure minimal democratic standards—are the logical culmination of his actions, as he has sought to concentrate power.

President Bukele remains enormously popular in El Salvador, where his social media projection, attacks on opponents, and discontent over the failures of the traditional political parties have made him a popular political figure. And with National Assembly elections coming in late February (which will likely see significant political gains for his supporters), he may be in an even stronger position to exert his influence over the legislature, the courts, and other government entities.

As President Bukele moved to concentrate power in his own hands in El Salvador, the Trump administration remained focused almost exclusively on migration issues, and the U.S. government was rarely critical of President Bukele’s actions, or outspoken in defense of democratic norms or the separation of powers. 

A Biden administration has the opportunity to refocus U.S. concerns in El Salvador, and to place a greater emphasis on respecting and strengthening the democratic institutions that were outlined in the peace accords. While the U.S. government faces its own challenges in defending democratic institutionality domestically, the Biden Latin America team recognizes that weak institutions, weak rule of law, and unchecked power are among the drivers of instability and forced migration in El Salvador and the region, and that addressing those challenges must be a key element of U.S. policy.   

As the Biden administration fills positions in the State Department, the Embassy, and other foreign policy related agencies in the coming months, it should reaffirm the importance of the peace accords as a framework for democratic development in El Salvador, support the civil society actors who are leading fights against corruption and for respect for the rule of law, and urge President Bukele to respect the separation of powers.