Submitted by Ludwig Bauer, a seasoned geopolitical analyst specializing in Latin American politics and conflict dynamics, with the concluding analysis and outlook authored by the Golden Raven team.
El Salvador’s Legislative Assembly approved constitutional changes to abolish presidential term limits and extend each presidential term to six years on Thursday, leading to fierce criticism from detractors of President Nayib Bukele and concerns regarding democratic freedom within the nation.
Key Takes
- El Salvador’s Legislative Assembly approved five major constitutional amendments, including the abolition of presidential term limits and extension of presidential terms from five to six years.
- The reforms sparked strong criticism from opposition lawmakers, who argue they dismantle democratic checks and entrench authoritarian rule. Legal critics and civil society actors, such as Enrique Anaya, warn that dissent is being criminalized—particularly after the controversial arrest of Ruth López.
- Despite the erosion of democratic norms, Bukele maintains overwhelming public support, largely credited to his aggressive crackdown on gang violence.
- The ongoing state of emergency, in place since 2022, has enabled mass arrests and restrictions on civil liberties, yet remains broadly popular.
- Human rights groups have raised alarm over forced arrest quotas, fabricated evidence, and abuses within the prison system, particularly in the newly built “Super Prison” (CECOT).
- The reforms reflect a structural departure from liberal democratic principles, undermining Montesquieu’s separation of powers and weakening institutional checks.
- El Salvador now faces three paths forward: full authoritarian consolidation, continued illiberal stability, or a low-probability return to institutional reform.
Constitutional Amendments
The change to the Salvadoran constitution began at the behest of Ana Figueroa, a deputy in the Legislative Assembly representing the department of San Salvador under Bukele’s New Ideas (Nuevas Ideas, ruling right-leaning party) party, who proposed a total of five changes to the constitution:
- Abolishing presidential term limits, allowing indefinite re‑election.
- Extending each presidential term from five to six years.
- Removing the second round of the presidential election in which the top two candidates directly compete for office, making the presidency decided by a simple majority.
- Aligning presidential, legislative, and municipal elections, synchronizing election cycles beginning in 2027.
- Advancing the end of Bukele’s current term to mid‑2027, two years earlier than originally scheduled, enabling an earlier start to a longer term.
The change was largely facilitated by New Ideas’ massive victory in El Salvador’s legislative election in 2024, winning the party an unprecedented supermajority with 54 of the total 60 seats in the Legislative Assembly, while Bukele likewise won the presidential election.
Since then, New Ideas has passed a variety of bills with little opposition, including a ban on public funding for political parties, a 30% tax on donations or funding from foreign organizations, and a cybersecurity law that critics claim could lead to press freedoms and the right to privacy for citizens.
Opposition Voices: Fears of Democratic Backsliding
“You don’t realize what indefinite reelection brings: it brings an accumulation of power and weakens democracy … there’s corruption and clientelism because nepotism grows and halts democracy and political participation.”
In response to criticism of the constitutional changes, President Bukele argued on X that while indefinite reelection is permitted in most nations, El Salvador is condemned for seeking the same simply because it is “small and poor country”—a comparison and statistic not supported by international data.
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.
Of course, they’ll rush to point out that “a parliamentary…
— Nayib Bukele (@nayibbukele) August 3, 2025
These constitutional changes have only intensified already existing concerns about the concentration of power in Bukele’s hands, and critics have accused New Ideas—and by extension Bukele—of exerting excessive control over El Salvador’s legislative process. Among them is lawyer Enrique Anaya, whose public opposition to Bukele intensified after the June 2025 arrest of Ruth López, head of the anti-corruption unit at the NGO Cristosal. López was detained on money laundering charges, but critics claim the arrest was politically motivated. Shortly before this, Anaya had called Bukele a “dictator” and expressed concern that those who speak out or criticize the president risk being imprisoned in El Salvador.
Popular Support During the State of Emergency
However, Bukele still holds massive public support among Salvadorans, with a poll conducted by LPG Datos in May boasting an 85.2% approval rating for the president. Critics and supporters alike link Bukele’s massive support with the president’s large-scale crackdown on crime across El Salvador during his first term in office, a crackdown facilitated through the declaration of a state of emergency following a string of 76 high-profile killings launched by MS-13 in March 2022. This state of emergency has frozen a number of civil rights, including the freedom of association, the right to remain silent, and the right to legal representation.
This crackdown has led to a dramatic drop in El Salvador’s violent crime rate, with homicides dropping from 18.1 per 100,000 people in 2021 to 7.8 in 2022 and 1.89 as of 2024. However, since 2019 the Salvadoran government has omitted several data points from official homicide records, including the discovery of homicide victims in mass graves and gang members killed in confrontations with authorities. The success of the crackdown has been central to Bukele’s political position, with the president often celebrating El Salvador’s achievement both on X and during massive public rallies. However, despite violent crime seemingly being defeated in El Salvador, the government has refused to end the state of emergency declared over three years ago.
Criticisms of the state of emergency only increased following the unveiling of El Salvador’s “Super Prison”—known formally as the Terrorism Confinement Center (CECOT)—in 2023, drawing concerns for the human rights of those incarcerated. Despite these criticisms, both Ecuador and Honduras have announced plans to construct similar prisons amid their own struggles with organized crime, with both nations declaring similar states of exception to Bukele drawing connections.
Bukele’s seeming disinterest in ending the state of emergency within El Salvador has fueled further criticism, leading some to claim that the president harbors authoritarian ambitions for the country’s future—accusations that started with Bukele referring to himself on social media as “the world’s coolest dictator” and have only intensified following the approval of the constitutional changes. Among key criticisms is the alleged forced arrest quotas on Salvadoran authorities, leading police to allegedly fabricate evidence and extort individuals both monetarily and sexually, according to Human Rights Watch.
Analysis and Future Outlook
The constitutional overhaul in El Salvador marks more than a legal shift—it signals a structural transformation of the country’s democratic institutions. By eliminating presidential term limits, extending executive power, and maintaining a prolonged state of emergency, Bukele’s administration has opened the door to indefinite rule while weakening key checks on authority. These changes undermine core principles of liberal democracy, particularly those rooted in Montesquieu’s doctrine of separated powers designed to prevent the possibility of establishing tyranny.
While Bukele continues to enjoy overwhelming popular support—driven largely by the perceived success of his security agenda—critics warn that recent constitutional changes have weakened institutional independence and normalized emergency governance. The prolonged state of exception, mass detentions, and concentration of legislative power raise serious questions about the country’s democratic resilience. Yet this support also reflects a deeper institutional failure: previous governments and traditional democratic structures were unable to effectively address the widespread violence and insecurity posed by criminal gangs, leaving a vacuum that Bukele’s hardline approach has filled—however controversially.
Looking forward, three potential scenarios emerge:
- Pessimistic Scenario (Moderate Confidence): Bukele abandons all democratic pretense, consolidates unchecked, personal rule, and suppresses dissent. The state of emergency becomes permanent, allowing the persecution of opposition, and El Salvador shifts to full authoritarian rule.
- Intermediate Scenario (High Confidence): Bukele continues to blend strongman governance with selective democratic processes, maintaining high approval and effectively eliminates gang violence. Emergency rule continues, and institutions adapt to a stable but illiberal system with limited political freedom.
- Optimistic Scenario (Low Confidence): As security stabilizes, emergency powers are lifted. Limited reforms restore some institutional balance, and controlled pluralism begins to reemerge within a softened executive framework.
Conclusion
The changes to the Salvadoran constitution are sure to empower both President Bukele and New Ideas in the coming years. With the removal of key guardrails against an entrenched president, the continued state of emergency, and the continued strengthening of the government, the possibility of an authoritarian government coming to power within El Salvador remains a possible future for the nation, leading some to express concerns that a similar internal conflict to the Salvadoran Civil War may arise.