Too Effective to Be Accepted by the World?

The debate over Nayib Bukele, president of El Salvador, reveals more about those pointing fingers than about the country’s actual reality. For much of the international press and analysts proudly aligned with the Western liberal model, Bukele is a “modern dictator.” But when we look at the facts, that label seems more like a political maneuver than an honest description.

The Concrete Experience of the Salvadoran People

For decades, El Salvador lived under the rule of the maras — criminal gangs that turned everyday life into a nightmare. The country once recorded homicide rates above 100 per 100,000 inhabitants, comparable to a civil war.

Under Bukele, those numbers have plummeted to levels similar to Europe. More important than the raw statistics is what people actually feel: citizens can walk the streets, open their businesses, and live without constant fear of violence. This sense of safety is unprecedented in the country’s recent history.

Calling this “ineffective” is a logical fallacy. The math of security is simple: homicides and crime have dropped drastically. The method — however tough — has produced real results.

External Judgment

Curiously, Bukele’s harshest critics are countries that have failed to deal with their own crime rates. While European cities face rising violence tied to uncontrolled immigration, and major U.S. cities struggle with persistently high homicide levels, El Salvador has found a way forward.

Unable to deny the numbers, the external narrative falls back on the word “unsustainable.” The claim is that mass incarceration cannot last or that the system will collapse. But so far, there is no proof of this — only ideologically driven projections.

The Rhetorical Weapon of “Dictator”

Bukele was elected in fair, audited elections, with results that matched independent polling. His popularity hovers around 90% — a rarity in any democracy.

So how can he be attacked? By inventing a new category: the “elected dictator.” It’s a reclassification with no objective basis, designed only to box in leaders who do not follow the

Western constitutional manual.

In practice, it is an attempt to preserve the political hegemony of Europe and the United States over what can and cannot be called democracy. Anyone who deviates from their playbook is labeled “authoritarian,” even if they govern by popular vote and deliver results.

Global Discomfort

The truth is simple: the Bukele model is unsettling precisely because it works. It challenges the narrative that only European or American liberal democracies can produce order and prosperity. If a small Central American nation proves there is another path, the hegemonic narrative feels threatened.

That is why, more than a legal debate, the controversy around Bukele is a political and symbolic battle. And like all battles of that kind, what matters is not the accuracy of the concepts but the power to impose the final word.

Breaking It Down

1. The Internal Perspective

   • Salvadorans, once living under the terror of the maras, now feel safer to walk the streets, work, and live.

   • This sense of security is not propaganda: it is confirmed by homicide data, which have dropped from warlike levels to rates comparable to Europe.

   • For those living this reality, the policy is clearly effective.

2. The External Judgment

   • Countries that failed to reduce their own crime rates use the yardsticks of “sustainability” or “human rights violations” to downplay El Salvador’s results.

   • In practice, it sounds like hypocrisy: condemning a model that worked because it exposes the failure of their own “civilized” methods.

   • Zero tolerance in El Salvador may be debated in terms of methods, but it cannot be called ineffective, the numbers prove otherwise.

3. The “Dictator” Label

   • Bukele has not abolished elections, nor does he remain in power without a vote.

   • He was elected in processes recognized as fair, with results consistent with independent polls.

   • Calling him a “dictator” is using a new political definition, molded to the interests of those pointing fingers.

   • It is a strategy: if they cannot delegitimize him through fraud claims, they create a new concept of dictatorship, the “elected dictator”, to use as a rhetorical weapon.

4. The Political Play

   • This reclassification is not neutral: it is a discursive tool to preserve the Western liberal model as the only acceptable version of democracy.

   • Ultimately, it is less about Bukele himself and more about controlling the definition of democracy worldwide.

   • Anyone who strays from the script is labeled “authoritarian” or “dictator,” even when backed by popular legitimacy and concrete results.

The Salvadoran people feel safer, crime has dropped dramatically, and accusations of ineffectiveness collapse in the face of the data. The word “dictator,” in this case, does not describe reality: it is a political weapon, a yardstick built by those who failed to manage crime and now seek to delegitimize an alternative model that worked.

When analyzing Nayib Bukele, the international press could not find the classic elements of a dictatorship: he did not seize power through a coup, he did not abolish elections, and he enjoys strong popular support, confirmed both at the ballot box and in independent polls. Confronted with this, the press adjusted its concepts and created new categories, such as “elected dictator” or “modern authoritarian”, to fit him into a convenient label.

This shows that the classification of Bukele as a “dictator” is not based on facts but on political and ideological framing. The real reason seems to be elsewhere: Bukele is not a left-wing president. His practical effectiveness in reducing crime and his overwhelming popularity make him uncomfortable for a global narrative largely shaped by progressive thinking.

The “dictator” label does not reflect El Salvador’s reality, it reflects the need to contain a leader who does not align with the dominant ideological playbook.

Paradox

There is a striking paradox in today’s global landscape. Many formal democracies in the West face growing social unease, with populations living in fear, streets dominated by violence, and businesses paralyzed by insecurity.

Meanwhile, in El Salvador, often labeled by the press as a “dictatorial regime”, the outcome is the exact opposite: people now walk the streets without fear, businesses are thriving, and daily life has been restored. Fear, once constant, has been replaced by a sense of order and confidence.

This contrast highlights the contradiction: regimes that proudly call themselves democracies fail to guarantee the most basic freedom, living without fear, while the Salvadoran model, despite criticism for not following the Western playbook, has given back to its people what matters most: safety and social peace.

If this persistent way of labeling continues, the very term democracy will end up unfairly damaged. Formal democracies, which hold free elections but fail to guarantee practical freedom, leave their populations trapped in fear, fear of walking the streets, of starting a business, of simply living.

At the same time, El Salvador, labeled a “dictatorial regime,” is now a country where people once again walk the streets without fear, where public life has returned, and businesses are flourishing.

The paradox is striking: when democracies tolerate insecurity, their legitimacy erodes; when a government restores social peace but is branded “authoritarian,” the label itself loses meaning. If this narrative persists, it will be the word democracy that suffers most, reduced to an ideological mask rather than a true expression of people’s will and well-being.

Bitcoin

Nayib Bukele did not only take on organized crime in El Salvador. By adopting Bitcoin as legal tender, he also challenged one of the world’s greatest taboos: the monopoly of central banks over money.

Bitcoin is, by definition, free money, it does not depend on governments, cannot be inflated by decree, and cannot be controlled by bureaucrats. For libertarians, it is one of the purest expressions of individual sovereignty. For the money masters and central banks, it is an existential threat.

It is no coincidence that the same media calling Bukele a “dictator” also ridicule or downplay El Salvador’s Bitcoin experiment. Beyond immediate economic debates, the adoption of cryptocurrency raises a possibility that many governments dread: the spread of monetary freedom.

If Bukele unsettles the world by reducing crime, he unsettles it even more by questioning the global monopoly on money. His embrace of Bitcoin is more than economic policy — it is a declaration of independence against a system that prefers dependent citizens over free ones.

Vigilance

Nayib Bukele has brought real change to El Salvador. The dramatic reduction in crime has restored to the people their basic right to live without fear, something many formal democracies have failed to deliver. This achievement deserves recognition.

Yet this is precisely why vigilance is essential. Bukele’s overwhelming popularity can be both his greatest strength and his greatest danger. Leaders who are guided only by immediate applause may forget that true legitimacy lies not just in approval ratings, but in preserving the very freedoms they fought to restore.

El Salvador does not need a new charismatic dictator; it needs the president who brought peace to also remain the guardian of liberty. History shows that authoritarian regimes often emerge from excessive trust in popular leaders. That must not be Bukele’s path.

Acknowledging results does not mean abandoning vigilance. The Salvadoran people deserve both the security they have gained and the freedoms they must keep.