El Salvador used to be one of the most dangerous places in the world to live. Gang members terrorized the citizens, and everyday killings were the norm. However, everything changed when Nayib Bukele became the president of El Salvador.
As a big fan of Nayib, I've dedicated multiple blog posts to him and his impact on El Salvador. In my most recent post, I discussed how Nayib successfully eradicated most of the gang members in the country and placed them in maximum security prisons.
Despite his achievements, Nayib faced criticism and was labeled a dictator for his actions. Recently, short clips on Twitter surfaced, featuring other gang members who had murdered a national hero, but now they are being brought to justice.
Nayib mobilized 5,000 soldiers and 500 police officers to capture these criminals. Within a few days, 50 gang members were arrested, and the three responsible for the murder were brought into the spotlight and thrown in jail.
Thanks to Nayib's efforts, El Salvador has been cleansed of "los pandilleros," as Nayib refers to them. However, the reaction from Western powers has been largely negative, with criticisms and disagreements overshadowing his accomplishments.
Is Nayib a dictator? Perhaps, but consider this: would you rather live under a dictatorship where you can walk the streets at night without fear for your family and children, or under a "democratic president" who does nothing to eliminate the gangs?
Some crypto enthusiasts argue that Nayib's approach in El Salvador showcases a centralization of power that goes against the principles of Bitcoin, for example. Nevertheless, the reason we have Bitcoin today is that the old system didn't work.
The previous democratic system in El Salvador was ineffective, necessitating the rise of a dictatorship. If citizens could stand up for themselves and defend each other against the gangs, external intervention wouldn't be necessary. However, when citizens are too weak to protect themselves, the need for such an authoritative figure arises.
Again, if the system weren't flawed, we wouldn't need Bitcoin and decentralized systems. Similarly, when so-called democratic systems fail, dictatorship might be the only solution.
I don't believe in a one-size-fits-all solution for every problem. I believe in finding adapted solutions, and right now, El Salvador may indeed need a dictator. This approach would not work for countries like America or Germany, but for El Salvador, it could be the perfect remedy.
As much as I support decentralization in certain cases, sometimes a functioning system requires an authority willing to work for its well-being. It may sound contradictory, but I envision a world where decentralization and centralization can coexist harmoniously if implemented properly.
What do you think?
Thanks for your attention,
Adrian
These days, the term dictator just seems to have a meaning of "anyone who won't obey the instructions laid down by the WEF and US governments or that Western legacy media doesn't like".
I think the natural human condition (which I guess is a result of our evolutionary history) is that people like to live under a single strong but competent leader who (at least ostensibly) works in everyone's interest but generally lets people just get on with their lives. Likewise they hate living in a system where leadership is by an amorphous committee of remote, corrupt, unapproachable self-appointed and self-serving rulers who over-regulate daily life.
WEF is poisonous. Bukele on the other hand, even if we consider him a dictator is trying to do good for the people of El Salvador.
live in the world of mad max or slave dictatorship? if we take it to the extreme. I prefer anarchy.
as one pirate said. why can't I wage war and steal with a few men like a free prince .Who relies on his courage . and he should have bowed to the king who hides behind the laws. and does the same in a bigger way
Whenever the Collective West declares someone ‘dictator’, you know it’s a label on a man who does not comply to their Nazi agenda.
True