This article analyzes the emergence of Nayib Bukele as a political figure in El Salvador from a Marxist materialist perspective. Bukele’s ascent is the result of both the failure of capitalist neoliberalist policies and the lack of a working-class struggle instrument. The author concludes that the only alternative lies in constructing a democratic political movement to confront the authoritarian and populist discourse taking shape in El Salvador.
Like several countries around the world, El Salvador is experiencing an onslaught of extreme right-wing policies. The current government of Nayib Bukele rules the country under a crackdown, persecutes human rights defenders, concentrates power, passes bills to deepen the neoliberalist model imposed on the country, establishes a pedagogy of blind obedience to authority, and expresses its intention to grant natural resources to external companies. To understand this context, it is necessary to delve into the material forces that have shaped the economic and social landscape in El Salvador. I reject the ordinary thesis, which states that his communication apparatus can ultimately explain Bukele’s success. Without doubt, this factor plays an important role. However, it would be insufficient without the concrete and material conditions that prepared the soil for imposing a new authoritarian regimen.
These are times of sharp class struggle. After the dismantlement of the Soviet Union, the imperialist ruling class of the United States strove to impose a neoliberal model all over the world. We should make no mistake. The Soviet Union plays a vital role in Western capitalist societies, where the threat of communism served as a shield that prevented further deepening of the level of exploitation and oppression on the working classes, as ruling classes feared that they might develop anti-capitalist feelings. With the dismantlement of the Soviet Union, US imperialists got the free hand to launch the most ferocious crusade against the working class.
This is the true meaning of neoliberalism, the economic and social model promoted since the last decades of the 20th century. The neoliberal offensive intensified in the 90s and 2000s, dismantling the welfare state, privatizing basic services, and advancing labor policies aimed to ensure a more extreme level of exploitation of the working class. It was an open war waged by imperialists and the national bourgeoisie against the working class worldwide.
Salvadoran context
This depiction faithfully represents what happened in El Salvador. Ever since the nation’s foundation, this country has been characterized by a solid class structure, which gave birth to an oligarchy that during the 20th century ruled the country ruthlessly with the support of military forces and US imperialism. As a result, the Salvadoran working class rose in a popular war to overthrow this class’s rule and democratize the country. Nonetheless, the support of US imperialism to the government makes it challenging to reach this goal, and the conflict endured for twelve years.
In the early 90s, a peace agreement was signed between the Farabundo Marti Front for National Liberation (FMLN) guerrilla and the government. That former guerrilla was established as a political party from that moment, moving the struggle into the electoral stage. The national ruling class established a twofold strategy to prevent even the slightest possibility of a modest social change. On the one hand, it was about delaying an eventual government of the FMLN; on the other, taming the political party, making it an integral part of the system. The FMLN slowly adapted to the existing political circumstances and finally renounced its anti-oligarchist and anti-neoliberalist project.
In 2009, the FMLN won the electoral contest with an independent candidate, Mauricio Funes, a social democrat, who was later accused of corruption. This meant the final blow to any hope of social transformation. This way, the Salvadoran working class was betrayed, and what had until that moment been its main political instrument to resist the wave of aggressive neoliberal policies driven by imperialist and oligarchic forces was undermined.
Bukeles’ path to absolute power
Paradoxically, this occurred at the exact point when neoliberalism collapsed all over the world. Therefore, at the exact moment when more anti-neoliberal and anticapitalist sentiment were on the rise. At that very point, the FMLN capitulated to neoliberalism, consummating its betrayal, now as a tamed ruling party. Ironically, just as the party reached its highest point and surveyed the landscape from the peaks of power, everything began to crumble. What neither the traditional oligarchy nor the imperial forces could do, namely, the party destruction, Bukeles did by weaponizing it from within.
Bukele emerged as an opportunist figure from the very beginning. He became a politician affiliated with the FMLN. He grew by utilizing a communicational campaign to construct the image of a youthful, new figure capable of maintaining a distance from the very same party he was a member of. Bukele’s strategy exploited the population’s discontent with traditional political parties, which aligned with the neoliberal system and did not represent the feelings and interests of the working class. It is class struggle, therefore, that primarily explains Bukele’s success. At that time, the political balance was tipping toward the left because people were ready to support an alternative party to take them out of capitalism and their horrors. Relying on his popularity, Bukele manipulated the FMLN to nominate him as a presidential candidate. When the party refused, he precipitated his own expulsion, knowing this would put it in an advantageous position from the viewpoint of the population, who would feel identified with a figure who had just become a victim of a political system people despised.
When Bukele was expelled from his former political party, he strove to promote the image of a radical progressive politician, promoting full democratization, which includes creating an absolute horizontal social movement, as well as social policies such as taxing the wealthy, lifting the national educational budget, and even creating more public universities. He also created a new local development ministry to support abandoned communities. In its first public intervention as an independent figure, it vindicated Shafik Handal, the historic leader of FMLN and former guerrilla commander. In short, Bukele appealed to left-wing forces. My hypothesis here is that this appeal had two purposes: on the one hand, to present himself as an alternative to neoliberal politics, which people were tired of, and on the other hand, and more importantly, to attract the electoral base of the FMLN, its former party, which he aimed to destroy.
Still, from the onset, his policies were far from progressive, let alone radical. He held a sovereigntist discourse while flirting with right-wing figures like Elon Musk. Therefore, Bukele was a split figure from the very beginning. My point here is that this split should not be located in the incoherence of his figure but is a mirror of a material split, namely, class struggle: to consolidate his power, Bukele needed to appeal to the interests of the working class. Initially, this implies stealing old vindications that people have longed for decades, the same vindications raised in the civil world, namely, social justice and genuine democracy. Once Bukele consolidates his power, he could play the traditional populist game and openly embrace the neoliberal language.
There is a way out through class struggle
This analysis shows that the current political moment in El Salvador can only be understood by a materialist analysis that considers the class dynamics. Bukele’s figure emerges to fill a void, resulting from the neglect of the working class by the FMLN. Salvadoran people launched a war to democratize the country and change its class structure. Finally, after 12 long years of war and a failed democratization period, people grew tired of so-called neoliberal democracy. The post-peace agreement period was perceived as a farce. In this context, the demagogy grew, presenting itself as a different solution.
The opposition’s main problem in El Salvador is that they are limited to denouncing the dismantlement of the democratic system; they forget that democracy was never a reality for the masses. We need a force capable of seeing beyond the ideological veil of capitalism. One of the key insights of Marx’s political thought was his depiction of capitalism’s tendency toward its own disintegration. Constant economic and political crises characterize capitalism. Marx viewed the construction of a communist party as essential to advancing historical progress. A key lesson of the Communist Manifesto is that without communism, capitalist disintegration can only lead to new ways of social and moral decay. Therefore, Marxism represents the most potent instrument through which the working class can confront the crisis of capitalism and the political monstrosities generated by its decline. The only viable course is the construction of a working-class party, the organization of the masses, and a united struggle against the resurgence of fascist forces.