The president of El Salvador, Nayib Bukele, proclaimed himself the winner of the general elections held on Sunday “with more than 85% of the votes,” according to what he published on the social network democratic history of the world.
“We have won the presidency of the Republic for the second time with more than 85% of the votes,” Bukele said before hundreds of his followers in his victory speech in the Historic Center of San Salvador.
Bukele, who ran for re-election despite the fact that the Constitution prevents it, used a legal trick to run in an election in which all polls showed him as the favorite.
The preliminary scrutiny of the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE) of El Salvador had reached 31.49% until midnight this Sunday, with which President Nayib Bukele added 1,295,888 votes.
With these results, which must be ratified in a final scrutiny with the physical records, Bukele would obtain an overwhelming advantage over his opponents.
Behind the New Ideas party (NI), the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN, left) is placed with 110,244 votes and the National Republican Alliance (Arena, right), with 96,700 votes.
#Nayib #Bukele #proclaimed #winner #general #elections #Salvador
What are the potential risks to democracy in El Salvador following Nayib Bukele’s re-election in light of his controversial legal maneuvers?
**Interview with Political Analyst on Nayib Bukele’s Re-election**
**Interviewer:** Today, we’re joined by political analyst Dr. Elena Garcia to discuss the recent re-election of Nayib Bukele as President of El Salvador, where he claimed over 85% of the votes. Dr. Garcia, what do you make of Bukele’s victory and the implications it has for the political landscape of El Salvador?
**Dr. Garcia:** Thank you for having me. Bukele’s overwhelming victory was anticipated given his popularity and the perception of him as a strong leader who has tackled gang violence effectively. However, the manner in which he sought re-election raises critical questions about the integrity of democratic processes in El Salvador. His maneuver to circumvent constitutional restrictions is concerning and could set a troubling precedent for future administrations.
**Interviewer:** Yes, the legal routes he took to run again have sparked debate. What do you predict will be the response from opposing parties and international observers?
**Dr. Garcia:** Opposing parties, particularly the FMLN and Arena, will likely rally to challenge the legitimacy of his presidency, arguing that his re-election undermines the rule of law. International observers may also scrutinize this election closely, especially considering the constitutional implications of his candidacy. It could lead to significant diplomatic discussions about governance in El Salvador moving forward.
**Interviewer:** Given these circumstances, how do you think Bukele’s governance will evolve in his second term?
**Dr. Garcia:** Bukele will likely double down on his approach to crime and economic initiatives that resonate with his base. However, he may also face mounting pressure to address concerns regarding civil liberties and political dissent as he consolidates power. His ability to navigate these challenges will be crucial for maintaining public support.
**Interviewer:** As a final question, how do you think the Salvadoran populace perceives this re-election? Are they supportive of Bukele’s methods, or is there a growing dissent?
**Dr. Garcia:** While many Salvadorans support Bukele for his perceived effectiveness in combatting crime and improving safety, there is also a vocal opposition. As civic engagement increases, we might witness more protests and demands for accountability, particularly if citizens feel their democratic rights are being eroded. This tension will be crucial to watch.
**Interviewer:** Thank you, Dr. Garcia, for your insightful analysis. This situation opens up a significant debate on governance and civic engagement in El Salvador.
**Question for Our Readers:** Given the recent developments in El Salvador and Nayib Bukele’s controversial re-election, do you believe that a leader’s effectiveness justifies legal deviations from constitutional norms? How should citizens balance support for governance with the need to uphold democratic principles? Join the discussion below!
