Why is El Salvador now allowing indefinite presidential re-election? (peoplesdispatch.org)

submitted 5 days ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

41 comments fedilink hide all child comments

all 43 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] haloduder@thelemmy.club 2 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Dictators aren't immediately bad and democracies aren't immediately good.

Since most people are dumb as shit and are being herded like sheep, it requires individuals who can resist the influence of the crowd to fix problems the crowd has been conditioned to allow.

In the case of El Salvador, since whatever they were doing before wasn't working, they now need to deal with an alternative that works better.

They only have themselves and the people sucking off their gang members to blame.

[-] altphoto@lemmy.today 2 points 4 days ago

I think time takes care of the "indefinition" part of the problem. people can help that too.

[-] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca 6 points 5 days ago

“90% of developed countries allow the indefinite reelection of their head of government, and no one bats an eye. But when a small, poor country like El Salvador tries to do the same, suddenly it’s the end of democracy.”

The difference is those governments usually have civil liberties etc that constrain the government. (The erosion of which is partly why trump is so concerning.)

Bukele has been arresting journalists and politicians he doesn't like. If you are arrested you effectively have no recourse.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 27 points 5 days ago

You can literally get arrested for social media posts in Europe. Anybody who's still pretending that there are some civil liberties in the west is deeply unserious.

[-] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com -4 points 5 days ago

Lol, are we seriously comparing CECOTland with being sued over posts? Deeply unserious.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 5 points 5 days ago

You're right, it would be entirely idiotic to compare a socialist government dealing with violent extremism by providing education with a fascist regime incarcerating people protesting a genocide it's conducting.

[-] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 5 days ago

Bukele, the Bitcoin-toting collaborationist with the Trump deportation scheme, is now a socialist. A self described "Third Way"-ist is now a socialist. A man who hangs out at CPAC, is now a socialist.

I have to frame this comment.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 days ago

I assumed you were referring to China there with the fav lib "education camps" trope.

[-] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 11 points 5 days ago

I referenced CECOT on a post talking about El Salvador. Not sure how u managed to think I was talking about China.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 7 points 5 days ago

yeah that's on me

[-] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca -4 points 5 days ago

You can literally get arrested for social media posts in Europe.

And then, as has happened for those cases, you get a trial.

The people arrested in El Salvador do not get trials. To conflate the two situations is either ignorant or simply childish.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 18 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

So if someone gets a trial and is found guilty for making bad posts you do not believe their civil liberties were violated, is that right?

[+] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca -12 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

No.

I am saying that a country with a functional judiciary is categorically different than one without.

Saying democratic countries with laws you dislike are the same as a country where the state is unrestrained by law is utter nonsense.

Edit: To put it very simply, in both places you could be arrested for social media posts. In El Salvador, that could be the last anyone hears of you. In the other, you have a lawyer, a fair trial and if you lose, you still have some human rights.

I know which I'd prefer.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 17 points 5 days ago

"""Democratic""" doing a lot of work there.

These aren't democratically popular laws and the people never voted to have these laws put into place. These laws were imposed onto them because their democracy is limited by what they are allowed to even vote for - in the end, there is still a ruling class.

[+] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca -8 points 5 days ago

Arguing there's no difference between a regime that disappears citizens and a flawed western democracy is mind bendingly dumb.

[-] Sodium_nitride@lemmygrad.ml 12 points 5 days ago

The west is literally commiting a genocide. They are mass disappearing people into the afterlife. Mind boggling that in 2025 we still have incredulous libs who believe in western exceptionalism.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 13 points 5 days ago

The regimes that disappears citizens are western "democracies". The only thing that's mind bendingly dumb here is fact that you're evidently unaware of this fact.

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 6 points 4 days ago

Yeah, one is run by white people

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

There isn't enough of a difference. After all, El Salvador is a "flawed democracy" too.

[-] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca -5 points 5 days ago

A flawed democracy that disappears citizens.

Seriously, it's not complicated.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 9 points 5 days ago

So the government can do anything it wants to its citizens as long as it isn't secret?

[-] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca -1 points 5 days ago

No.

I am saying that a country with a functional judiciary is categorically different than one without.

Saying democratic countries with laws you dislike are the same as a country where the state is unrestrained by law is utter nonsense.

I know which I'd prefer.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 10 points 5 days ago

To unsimplify it, in both places you will have your civil liberties violated when you are arrested for making bad posts. In El Salvador, that's it. Game over. In the other you have a lawyer and a trial and other various rights, so you don't disappear.

But, your civil liberties are still violated when you get arrested for posting. That doesn't go away just because there is a process to ameliorate the harm, even if you win your court case your civil liberties were still violated! You also probably won't win in court if you are guilty of bad posts, despite the fact that the law is absurd. The government letting you have your day in court after already violating your rights and then finding you guilty anyway doesn't really mean civil liberties are protected.

The country you prefer to live in is entirely irrelevant to the actual question: are civil liberties being violated?

And they clearly are.

[-] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca -5 points 4 days ago

By that logic, you are in all likelihood no better than any of the child rapists at Epstein's island. Why? Well, children mined the cobalt in your phone and you're probably wearing some sweatshop clothes.

Both the child rapists and you are harming children. Whether one is raping children or just buying stuff that comes with child harns is irrelevant, both are hurting kids.

Do you see how goddamn silly an argument you are making? Yes, neither is a utopia but there is a fundamental difference between a government acting in accordance due process enacting laws and the government disappearing people.

[-] queermunist@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

"No better"

You keep trying to make this relative, but that's moving the goal posts. Originally you just said that other countries have civil liberties, which makes them categorically different from El Salvador and so it's okay to have indefinite reelections.

But, the reality is that civil liberties are also being violated by those other countries, so your original argument doesn't work. The truth is that those other countries are trampling on civil liberties too, and it's getting worse over time. It's not just Trump! It's everywhere, and some are farther along the slippery slope than others.

Maybe they shouldn't have indefinite reelections either. It doesn't seem to be helping at any rate.

Or maybe indefinite reelections don't actually matter and it's not worth focusing on it.

But to just declare El Salvador as fundamentally different is clearly wrong. The difference is of degree, not kind.

[-] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca -2 points 4 days ago

Is your position that you are not categorically different than a child rapist? That difference in the harms you both cause to children is of degree, not kind? And thus should be treated or considered the same?

[-] HiddenLayer555@lemmy.ml 7 points 4 days ago

functional judiciary

The US definitely doesn't have this anymore.

[-] BrainInABox@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 days ago

The civil liberty to be extra-judicially murdered like Fred Hampton or the Ferguson organizers.

[-] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 5 days ago

Yeah, and everyone was totally fine with Trump talkimg about a third because, as we know, term limits and democracy only matter in small, poor countries.

[-] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca 1 points 5 days ago

Oh wow, you missed the hundreds of think pieces freaking out about that threat?

https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+third+term+threat

[-] belastend@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 5 days ago

May I introduce you to the concept of irony?

[-] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca -2 points 5 days ago

Ha, my bad! Sorry, too many children on this thread posting just absolute nonsense.

[-] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 4 points 4 days ago

"the adults in the room" angle doesn't even encompass you considering your defense for western "democracies", fucking ageist.

Let me guess, GenZ/Y drawing a hard red line on and being vocal about genocide and western interventionism is attributed to their "youthful fervor" that will wane away in time too?

[-] MyBrainHurts@lemmy.ca 0 points 2 days ago

“the adults in the room” angle doesn’t even encompass you considering your defense for western “democracies”, fucking ageist.

It's more that the take being espoused, that there's no difference between a state that disappears journalists and citizens compared to a Western democracy is a childish take, and to argue it makes you seem a child.

It's like when my friend's adorable toddler asked why she can't have ice cream "an a broccli" every meal (as she understands vegetables are important.) It's a reasonable question for a child as we don't expect her to understand all the nutrition etc that makes that a terrible plan. If she asks it, no worries. If a teenager or older asks, I immediately assume they're kind of a child.

Arguing a place that locks up journalists and 'suspected' citizens is in the same realm as a western democracy with some laws you don't like, is a childish position, that you expect from someone with little to no understanding of the role/importance of a judiciary, checks and balances between branches of government or the fourth branch. They likely know and understand little about the many regimes where this has happened and the horrific tragedies that ensue. And fair, not everyone has time to read or the fortune of knowing people who have come from those places. But it is still childishly ignorant.

Let me guess, GenZ/Y drawing a hard red line on and being vocal about genocide and western interventionism is attributed to their “youthful fervor” that will wane away in time too?

Huh, where are you getting this from?

[-] Samsuma@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 day ago

More word-salad that basically amount to patronizing "it's nuanced" ageism is all I'm reading here, fucking racist age-chauvinist.

The others in other threads have clearly expressed their points in great detail as to why Western regimes, currently committing genocide and adding multiple war crimes under their belt, are not "liberating", "civilized" states upholding "civil liberties". Applying jurisprudence to regime changes, land-grabbing, enslavement, disappearance, murders and torture and going through court circus to justify their actions doesn't make them "civilized" or much better than their client states, European settler.