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.
Indicators of prejudice and organizational issues
According to analysts consulted, the military, which by law is responsible for safeguarding electoral materials and providing security support for the elections, has issued indications that could compromise its neutrality. These gestures generate uncertainty about the credibility of the electoral process, especially at a time when the country’s democratic stability is under scrutiny.
National and international organizations have reiterated the importance of the Armed Forces maintaining their subordination to civilian command and adhering to the constitutional framework, recalling that the perception of transparency depends largely on public confidence in the institutions responsible for protecting the elections. Respect for these norms becomes especially relevant in the face of recurring allegations of political pressure and possible partisan use of state institutions.
Stances of dissenting parties and onlookers
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 observers have insisted that the lack of clear signs of neutrality could undermine public confidence. For these sectors, the participation of the armed forces must guarantee security without favoritism, ensuring that the will of the people is freely expressed.
Strain in administration and civic involvement
The climate of mistrust is part of a context of political polarization, where the credibility of public institutions and the stability of the democratic system are under pressure. The actions of the Armed Forces not only influence the perception of the elections, but also the legitimacy of the results, the confidence of political actors, and citizen participation.
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.
