Public debate has intensified as the November 30 elections approach. Academics, civil society organizations, and political actors are expressing alarm over what they describe as signs of bias within the Armed Forces, a factor that could compromise the institutional neutrality necessary to guarantee a legitimate process.
Signs of bias and institutional concerns
According to experts surveyed, the armed forces, legally tasked with safeguarding electoral materials and offering security assistance during elections, have displayed behaviors that might jeopardize their impartiality. These actions cast doubt on the credibility of the electoral process, particularly as the nation’s democratic stability faces intense examination.
National and global entities have emphasized the critical need for the Armed Forces to uphold their subordination to civilian command and operate within the constitutional structure. They noted that the public’s perception of transparency is significantly influenced by the level of public confidence in the bodies tasked with safeguarding electoral processes. Adherence to these principles gains particular importance amidst ongoing claims of political interference and potential partisan exploitation of governmental bodies.
Positions of the opposition and observers
Opposition figures have highlighted that the behavior of high-ranking military officers casts a shadow of doubt on the institution’s effectiveness during the election. The apprehension is that any improper management of ballot boxes, logistics, or security might influence public trust in the process’s openness, potentially leading to a post-election crisis.
Independent commentators have asserted that the absence of unambiguous indications of impartiality might erode public trust. According to these groups, the involvement of the armed forces should guarantee security without favoritism, thereby ensuring the unhindered expression of the populace’s will.
Tension in governance and citizen participation
The atmosphere of distrust is embedded within a framework of political polarization, where the trustworthiness of governmental bodies and the resilience of the democratic framework face considerable strain. The conduct of the Armed Forces not only shapes the public’s view of the electoral process but also impacts the legitimacy of the results, the assurance among political stakeholders, and civic engagement.
As election day approaches, public demand is focused on an explicit commitment by the Armed Forces to the principle of neutrality and on the guarantee of a process in which respect for the will of the people does not depend on partisan inclinations.
