Ramón Valencia (El Salvador)

In the last decade of the 20th century, the United States consolidated the imposition of neoliberal globalism in Latin America, exerting strong pressure on countries in the region to adopt a system of rules and institutions designed to guarantee its control over governments and peoples globally. This strategy was implemented through international institutions such as the World Trade Organization (WTO), the World Bank (WB), and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which functioned as instruments to condition and guide economic and social policies.

In addition to resorting to these global bodies, the United States promoted the creation of specific regional entities to reinforce its influence and economic dominance on the continent. Among these was the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA), a project that sought to deepen economic integration under neoliberal criteria and guarantee unrestricted access to Latin American markets for U.S. capital and products.

The central objective of this initiative was to establish an institutional framework that would ensure the economic dominance of the United States over the peoples of Latin America, limiting the autonomy of their governments and restricting the possibilities for sovereign development in the region.

To legitimize its platform of domination and exploitation, the old military dictatorships, which had enjoyed support in previous periods, were replaced by governments that had emerged through electoral processes. This transformation sought to project the image of democratic, progressive, and civilian administrations, as well as that of a regional project focused on cooperation and development. However, behind this appearance, the free exploitation of the continent’s extensive natural resources was ensured for the benefit of external interests.

This context created new possibilities for popular and left-wing parties and organizations, which until then had been persecuted or directly confronted by their own governments. These groups were invited to participate in electoral processes, but on the condition that they abide by the rules established by the system. In contrast, those countries, parties, or organizations that decided to confront and denounce the imperialist strategy, defending their sovereignty and national interests, were subjected to isolation and aggression. Within this scenario, the example of dignity and resistance demonstrated by both the people and the government of Cuba stands out.

In this context of domination and subjugation driven by imperialism, the figure of Commander Hugo Rafael Chávez emerged. In 1998, at the head of the Bolivarian movement in Venezuela, he achieved a historic electoral victory that marked a turning point in the region. This triumph, by defeating the right wing, showed the Latin American peoples that it is possible to conquer political power even under the rules imposed by the dominant system and, from there, to begin the transformation of societies toward more just and sovereign models.

Commander Chávez’s victory triggered a series of victories for left-wing and progressive parties and movements in various Latin American countries. These political projects were distinguished by their commitment to the sovereign interests of their nations and by incorporating a significant component of popular participation in decision-making and political construction processes.

The impact of this new balance of power had consequences at the regional level, notably the defeat of the neoliberal Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) project. In its place, alternative integration initiatives based on solidarity and complementarity among Latin American nations emerged. Examples of this are the formation of the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) and the creation of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC), among other projects aimed at strengthening cooperation and sovereign development in the region.

The 2008 financial crisis represented the exhaustion of the neoliberal project and forced imperialism to patch up its strategy worldwide. Meanwhile, in the region, the United States opted to launch a counteroffensive aimed at reestablishing and strengthening its economic, political, and military control over Latin American countries. To achieve this goal, imperialism resorted to the application of intervention methods already used in the past, known for their effectiveness in interfering in the internal affairs of countries. However, unlike previous stages, this new cycle incorporated more sophisticated and updated techniques, which significantly increased the scope and danger of interventionist actions.

This combination of traditional and modern tactics not only included mechanisms of economic pressure and political manipulation but also encompassed the use of media and digital tools, the judicialization of politics, disinformation campaigns, and the exploitation of internal conflicts. This deepened the capacity for destabilization and reinforced the strategy to subjugate and control the governments and peoples of the region, making the offensive even more lethal and difficult to counter.

As early as 2001, the United States government organized a coup d’état that overthrew President Hugo Chávez, which was defeated and reversed by the heroic action of the Bolivarian people. A year later, it promoted an oil strike that sought to economically strangle the Bolivarian Revolution. These actions were directed especially against the Republic and the Bolivarian Revolution of Venezuela. These interventionist actions were studied and became the basis for the regional strategy. By 2009, the counteroffensive had spread throughout the region.

The initial element was a strong disinformation campaign by the media monopolies, all owned by oligarchic groups. The main message was to accuse the national government of the consequences of maintaining a national and sovereign policy against the interests of the United States, holding it responsible for the effects caused by the campaign of isolation and destabilization that this entailed.

The disinformation campaign was accompanied by the organization of two social structures, built from U.S. embassies with resources monitored through USAID. One consisted of a series of non-profit organizations and citizen associations that carried out street actions in each country, gradually moving from social protest to political protest, which could escalate into criminal violence, whose main element was a feeling of dissatisfaction that escalated into frustration. The other structure was that of digital platforms, which were used to shape public opinion by manipulating perception and post-truths.

Finally, there were special operations ranging from social and economic destabilization to coups d’état or contract killings. To this end, problems of violence were exploited and maximized, using special groups that appeared to be social organizations and that might be associated in one way or another with transnational crime structures, which were always controlled by agencies such as the DEA.

In 2009, a coup d’état was carried out against President Mel Zelaya of the sister Republic of Honduras, the first democratically elected progressive government to be overthrown by the imperialist counteroffensive. From that moment on, the policy of destabilization and defeat of different governments deepened. Whether defeated at the polls or through a coup d’état, the goal was to change the political map, consolidating a cycle of democratic setbacks and loss of popular gains.

In this first stage of the counteroffensive, once the leftist or progressive government had been defeated or overthrown, the coup sectors, guided by imperialism, sought, among other objectives, to ensure control of the electoral bodies or institutions of the respective country, with the aim of giving the appearance of maintaining the constitutional framework and pretending to return to “democratic normality,” but ensuring control of the right-wing succession by fraudulent means.

The unexpected response for the imperialists and the right wing was that the resistance of the people returned to occupy the streets and squares. Despite coup maneuvers, repression, media deception, and electoral intervention, the people confronted these maneuvers and often regained political spaces and governments by using the same institutional mechanisms that the system itself provided. This situation showed that imperialist control, based on democratic appearances and institutional mechanisms, was unsustainable in the face of social mobilization and organized resistance. Faced with this impossibility of stabilizing its dominance, imperialism was forced to modify its strategy once again, resorting to the destruction of the very framework of bourgeois law that it had promoted decades earlier. The main objective was to reduce the spaces for democratic participation and definitively repress left-wing or progressive movements and parties. In this way, it sought to eliminate any possibility of popular organization that could challenge the established control.

In this new scenario, space opened up for increasingly extremist and authoritarian political positions. Regardless of whether they came to power through coups or elections, they immediately adopted measures aimed at destroying any form of popular organization and the spaces conquered by the people. More authoritarian and repressive forms of government were consolidated, laying the foundation for the imposition of fascist models that limit democratic participation and guarantee absolute control for the dominant sectors.

Chapter: El Salvador

December 31, 1991, marked a historic turning point for El Salvador, when the Peace Accords were signed, ending two decades of armed conflict, including a civil war that had begun in January 1981. This negotiation process resulted in a transition from armed confrontation to the political-electoral arena, allowing the opposing projects that had sustained the conflict to continue their disputes through political participation and electoral competition.

For the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN), the transition from a guerrilla movement to a political and electoral actor represented an enormous challenge. Nevertheless, it gradually managed to build a solid electoral base and growing acceptance among the Salvadoran population. This allowed it to advance and ultimately achieve presidential victory in 2009.

The FMLN’s conquest of the government coincided with an extremely adverse international context. At that time, the global financial crisis that began in 2008 was severely impacting the region, generating uncertainty and economic difficulties. In addition, the imperialist offensive was unfolding with force in Latin America, as evidenced by the coup d’état against President Mel Zelaya in Honduras, also in 2009.

During the two terms in which the Farabundo Martí National Liberation Front (FMLN) was in power—a total of ten years—the country was the scene of an intense campaign of political destabilization. In the first term, despite not having a parliamentary majority, the FMLN was able to take advantage of internal divisions within the right wing and, by building strategic alliances, managed to secure a simple majority that allowed it to govern. This context forced the opposition, led by the U.S. embassy, to modify its strategy and shift the focus of its offensive to other institutional fronts.

The opposition’s new tactic was to use the judiciary, the Attorney General’s Office, and the media as the first line of attack against the FMLN government. Despite these maneuvers, the FMLN managed to secure, albeit by a narrow margin, its continuity in a second presidential term. However, this result provoked an immediate reaction from abroad: the U.S. State Department decided to intensify its campaign of attrition.

As part of this intensification, Ms. Jane Manes was appointed as the U.S. ambassador to the country. Her agenda and work plan added new elements to the destabilization process, including strengthening organizational work in communities and forming non-profit associations financed through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). At the same time, the embassy became directly involved in a campaign to discredit the national political system.

The end result of this campaign of attrition was the electoral defeat of the FMLN. However, the repercussions were not limited to the left: the destabilization strategy also led to the breakdown of the country’s entire traditional political system, even affecting the right-wing party that aspired to regain power. In this scenario of crisis and the breakdown of traditional political structures, an unexpected winner emerged for the United States, significantly transforming the Salvadoran political landscape.

The process of attrition promoted by the U.S. embassy was key to creating an atmosphere of widespread rejection of the traditional Salvadoran political system. This strategy, sustained for years, not only weakened the FMLN government but also the legitimacy of the historical parties, paving the way for the emergence of an alternative that presented itself as “anti-system.”

In this context, Bukele emerged as a figure who represented a different option from the traditional parties. His strategy consisted of presenting himself as a staunch opponent of the “political class,” which allowed him to attract both disenchanted left-wing and right-wing sectors. His discourse was distinguished by its aggressive, banal, and insulting tone, which capitalized on deep social resentment toward the political class. As a result, Bukele’s campaign achieved a resounding victory at the polls.

After taking office, to reinforce his discourse, Bukele launched two lines of action on social media: a campaign of harassment, persecution, and, in some cases, physical capture of opposition political leaders, whether from the left or the right, with a clear objective—to neutralize any voice that could represent an obstacle or threat to the new government. Simultaneously, he organized public spectacles through the same digital media, announcing the closure of programs and institutions emblematic of previous FMLN governments. During these actions, employees identified as left-wing sympathizers were dismissed, sometimes in an insulting manner and without any consideration for their labor rights. The arbitrariness was such that anyone could be accused of being a relative or sympathizer and dismissed immediately. Those who tried to resist these measures faced harassment and were accused under any pretext, further intensifying the atmosphere of persecution.

These two campaigns, carried out simultaneously and with media coverage, succeeded in instilling fear as a central element in public life. The underlying goal was to consolidate a climate of insecurity and vulnerability for all those who dared to question or confront the regime’s actions.

From his first day in power, Nayib Bukele established a clear stance on the international stage, aimed at affirming his imperialist position. One of his first actions was to break diplomatic relations with the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. This was not only done publicly and in the media but also without due process, which showed his intention to position himself before the international community and send signals about the new orientation of the Salvadoran government.

At the same time, Bukele undertook a significant rapprochement with the administration of Donald Trump in the United States. This bond was such that he came to be recognized as a personal friend of the then-U.S. president, thus consolidating a relationship of political and strategic proximity. This rapprochement marked a difference from other countries in the region and showed El Salvador’s alignment with the policies promoted by Washington.

During the second year of Bukele’s administration, the arrival and spread of the COVID-19 pandemic became the perfect justification for implementing a level of social control never before seen in the country. Under the guise of preventing the spread of the disease, the government decreed a total lockdown of the national territory, restricting the mobility and daily activities of the population. This measure was accompanied by an intense media campaign of panic, urging citizens to report anyone who had recently entered the country.

As part of these actions, confinement areas were established for those entering the country—areas that lacked the minimum conditions to adequately handle quarantine—quickly becoming hotbeds of contamination and spread of the virus. Far from containing the spread of the disease, these measures proved counterproductive and contributed to the spread of the pandemic throughout the country.

Throughout that year, the population lived in a state of constant anxiety, facing a series of abuses and controversial measures that deepened the climate of fear. The message was clear: citizens had to cooperate with the authorities, or at least appear to do so, in order to protect themselves, making people feel vulnerable and unprotected in the face of the government’s arbitrary actions.

During 2021, elections were held for the Legislative Assembly in El Salvador. With the aim of securing a parliamentary majority, President Bukele began, months in advance, to construct a public narrative in which he blamed opposition deputies for the lack of financial support needed to combat the epidemic and for other resources essential for government management.

For their part, legislators responded by exposing cases of corruption in the administration of these resources and denouncing violations of the law in several of the measures taken by the government. However, Bukele, supported by the media, managed to manipulate public perception, presenting these allegations as attempts to obstruct his administration and harm the interests of the people.

Every time the debate was opened, the president intensified the level of confrontation and insults, preventing the situation from being properly understood. This strategy reached its peak on February 9, 2021, when Bukele, using the army, the police, and various civilian shock groups, took over the parliament building by force.

The action was accompanied by a publicity campaign that presented this parliamentary coup as a “liberating action” against an alleged clique of deputies and former officials who were blamed for the country’s serious problems.

At the end of the occupation, in a gesture intended to be messianic, Bukele addressed the assembly from the podium of the legislative presidency, declaring, “Now we know who is in control,” but adding that “God had spoken to him, telling him that he should not yet take the legislative palace.” This episode, together with the enormous media campaign that supported it, proved favorable for Bukele: a month later, the coalition of parties that formed his alliance managed to obtain a qualified parliamentary majority.

The new balance of power was immediately manifested through the dismissal of the entire Supreme Court of Justice, an act that violated the constitutional procedures established for the gradual removal of magistrates. Likewise, the Attorney General of the Republic was removed and replaced by a figure aligned with the government’s interests.

Shortly thereafter, most of the country’s judges were dismissed and replaced, thus bringing the judiciary completely in line with the executive branch. This reconfiguration allowed the government to exercise absolute control over the judicial system, eliminating any possibility of institutional checks and balances.

To justify more far-reaching changes, a commission of experts was formed, chaired by the Vice President of the Republic, under the pretext of proposing a constitutional reform. However, this initiative never produced results, making it clear that the real objective was to legitimize presidential reelection, even though the Constitution prohibits it.

Faced with the impossibility of presenting a legitimate constitutional reform, the Constitutional Chamber took on the task of interpreting the article referring to the exercise of the presidency, decreeing that said article did not prevent reelection. At the same time, Bukele’s parliamentary group drafted and approved a reform to the same article, ensuring the president’s continued reelection, which had to be ratified by the next Legislative Assembly.

The growing discontent of the population, exacerbated by constant abuses of power and deteriorating living conditions, led to the organization and mobilization of a renewed social movement. Faced with this new wave of protests, President Bukele’s immediate reaction was to order the arrest of former public officials and some social leaders, many of whom were deprived of their liberty without having undergone a proper judicial process. However, despite these attempts at intimidation, social mobilization persisted and continued to manifest itself in the country.

At that point, he launched a policy of violence control under the pretext of combating gangs. Thanks to an agreement with Bukele, the gangs had maintained relative calm in terms of lethal violence, although not in their extortion of the population. This agreement was broken after a series of violent acts and murders attributed to these criminal groups. Immediately after the campaign began, a state of emergency was declared, and the rights of association, mobility, and protest were suspended, muzzling the social movement and neutralizing protests and denunciations of human and constitutional rights violations. According to unofficial data, there have been at least 7,000 arbitrary arrests of people who do not belong to gangs, representing 10% of the total number of arrests, and 153 cases of death in custody have been documented, as well as reports of torture and ill-treatment.

The 2024 electoral process in El Salvador took place in an environment marked by political tension and control exercised by the Bukele government. Although these elections saw a decline in popular support, reflected in a decrease in votes for the presidential candidate, there was also a significant increase in reports of possible irregularities. Among the main concerns were alterations to the electoral roll and a lack of transparency in the audit of the computer system, which raised suspicions about the legitimacy of the results.

Despite these allegations, the ruling coalition managed to maintain a qualified majority in the Legislative Assembly. This result was key, as it allowed for the ratification of the article of law that enables Bukele’s reelection, thus ensuring the president’s permanence in power and consolidating the executive branch’s control over the Salvadoran political system.

International Position

On the international stage, although relations with Joe Biden’s administration deteriorated, they were never in danger of breaking down. With Donald Trump’s return to the U.S. presidency, bilateral ties have been strengthened, positioning El Salvador as a key country for Trump’s strategy in the region.

The strengthening of relations with the Trump administration has turned El Salvador into an example of the policy of domination and control that the U.S. president seeks to impose on Latin America. The country has become a key player in the strategy of aggression against the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, playing an active role in actions aimed at destabilizing the Venezuelan government.

In this context, El Salvador has granted refuge and made high-profile advisors of numerous Venezuelans who have been convicted for their participation in coups and terrorist acts. These individuals continue to conspire and operate permanently against Venezuela, which has prompted complaints from the Venezuelan government. During the presidential elections on July 28, 2024, the Bolivarian government publicly accused one of the main members of this group of leading a hacking attack against the computer system of the electoral process.

As part of these actions against the Venezuelan government and people, Bukele made prison facilities, known as CECOT, available to the United States government for the deportation and kidnapping of Venezuelan migrant citizens, accusing them of belonging to criminal gangs without due process, thereby creating a serious precedent of human rights violations.

This action was carried out with extreme violence and widespread media coverage, hoping to elicit sympathy from the Venezuelan people for the brutal way in which the alleged criminals were punished. The result was quite the opposite: the Venezuelan people showed solidarity and mobilized for the freedom of their fellow citizens, forcing Trump to order their transfer to their homeland—all without taking Bukele’s opinion into account.

Finally, as part of this strategy of aggression, a permanent media campaign is being waged against the Venezuelan people, showing them the living conditions of Venezuelan refugees in El Salvador and presenting Bukele as a charismatic leader, with the intention of creating a favorable opinion of what they call the “Bukele model.”

In short, in just six years, Nayib Bukele’s government has managed to reverse the fundamental contents of the Peace Accords, minimizing and even denying their historical importance and the causes that motivated them. This process has been accompanied by the systematic demolition of the constitutional framework, establishing a regime that operates de facto and acts arbitrarily, even affecting the legislative and judicial branches of government.

The control exercised by the government extends to the field of communication, where it maintains constant activity on social media. Through these platforms, the executive branch distracts the public, eliminates public debate, and projects a favorable international image, while persecuting and repressing any expression of opposition within the country.

The repression instituted by the Bukele government does not distinguish between levels of opposition: it affects political parties, social movements, and individual citizens who dare to question or denounce recurring abuses, including people in his inner circle who have dared to point out crimes or misdemeanors committed by the government itself and its officials. Physical acts of persecution, repression, and murder have created an atmosphere of widespread fear, in which most people live under the constant threat of reprisals, with no collective capacity to confront this situation.

While on the international stage it has established a pro-imperialist position and remains hostile to progressive governments and movements—with particular aggression against the Bolivarian government—one of its main contributions to the imperial counteroffensive in the region is its advertising campaign aimed at the popular sectors, which seeks to encourage them to emulate the Bukele model.

Final Considerations

The current imperialist strategy responds directly to the crisis of capitalism and the progressive decline of the United States as a hegemonic power. This strategy is aimed at establishing neo-fascist regimes, whose main objective is to ensure the recovery and maintenance of U.S. dominance. To achieve this, they not only seek to eliminate political and social opposition but are also willing to break bourgeois constitutional frameworks when these are considered obstacles to their interests.

Although Bukele’s initial rise to power may have seemed fortuitous, it is, in fact, fully aligned with this imperialist strategy. However, it is important to consider that an eventual change of government in the United States could mean the return of its traditional representatives and, consequently, the fall of Bukele.

Even so, this would not imply an abandonment of the imperialist intention to maintain control over Salvadoran society. The advance of neo-fascism—including that imposed by the Trump administration in the United States—poses a serious threat not only to the region but to all of humanity. However, this threat also opens up the opportunity to confront and defeat what the empire of barbarism represents, promoting the advance of socialism.

Thus, a historic duty arises: defeating the offensive of imperialism and neo-fascism requires raising the level of organization and struggle of the peoples. The widespread dissemination of the principles of socialism is the only guarantee of achieving definitive victory over darkness and ensuring a future of justice and dignity.