The real Nayib Bukele – and his relationship with President Javier Milei

Nayib Armando Bukele Ortez, the president of El Salvador, is one of the most charismatic and controversial leaders in Latin America. 

Born on July 24, 1981, in San Salvador, Bukele entered politics in 2011 as a member of the Frente Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN), a left-wing party made up of old guerrilla fighters who actively participated in El Salvador’s civil war.

The FMLN became a formal political party following the peace agreements of 1992, which put an end to the civil war in El Salvador. During his time with the National Liberation Front, Bukele was elected mayor of Nuevo Cuscatlán and then, of the capital, San Salvador.

However, he broke with the FMLN in 2017, accusing the party of having betrayed its original ideals and having distanced itself from the people. That very year, Bukele founded the Nuevas Ideas political movement, a populist party which quickly won a significant base of support thanks to its outspoken rhetoric against corruption, traditional political elites and its focus on security and the modernisation of the country. 

Initially, Bukele’s movement seemed to lean more towards the left. Since, his discourse and actions have been evolving towards a more centrist and pragmatic position, with centre-left and centre-right elements.

The Salvadoran leader has used social media platforms to communicate directly with the population, presenting himself as a disruptive and anti-establishment leader, on the fringes of old political structures. 

During his time in office, he has implemented aggressive policies to combat gang violence, such as the “Territorial Control Plan,” which has managed to significantly reduce murder rates, though he has been criticised by international organisations for his hardline, authoritarian methods.

In some quarters, Argentina’s President Javier Milei has been compared with Bukele. They both share certain points, though their political journeys and ideological bases are markedly different.

Both have presented themselves as alternatives to traditional political systems in their respective countries. Milei, with an extreme liberal discourse and right-wing touches, has harshly criticised what he calls “the political caste.” Bukele, despite his left-wing party roots, has done likewise, criticising corruption and the status quo in El Salvador.

The Latin American leaders both use populism as a political tool. Bukele and Milei position themselves as “saviours” who will fight against the elites and put an end to abuses of power. They use social networks to communicate directly with their followers, bypassing traditional channels of communication.

Both heads of state have been able to exploit their public images online. Bukele has been known for his strategic use of X/Twitter and his communication with Salvadoran youth. Milei, in turn, uses social media repeatedly, his X account is tireless, launching provocative and controversial messages, building him a solid base of followers.

Bukele has been accused of governing in an authoritarian manner, particularly through the use of security forces and the militarisation of aspects of public life. Milei, in turn, has been criticised for his aggressive rhetoric and vision of a “pure liberal democracy” in which traditional political institutions are replaced by mechanisms which eliminate what he sees as obstacles to freedom.

A shared characteristic is the desire to make deep and swift changes in their countries. Bukele has pushed reforms to centralise power around his presidency, and has dismantled key institutions which, his critics say, are vital to ensure the separation of powers. Milei, in Argentina, has suggested radical proposals such as the privatisation of key sectors of the state, including the elimination of the Central Bank.

Despite these similarities, there are remarkable differences. Bukele started his career in the left and switched to a pragmatic centrist populism, Milei, a far more liberal approach on economic matters, advocates a drastic reduction of the state, a topic which is not central to Bukele’s agenda.

On security, Bukele has aimed for an extremely rigid policy to tackle drug-trafficking and violent gangs in El Salvador. Argentina’s government so far has not shown such a fierce focus on security issues, though Milei has promised drastic changes to the nation’s institutional order.

Bukelehas challenged traditional structures in El Salvador, governing with a populist and authoritarian style, and has garnered strong popular support thanks to his rhetoric and actions against corruption and gang violence. Although he and Javier Milei come from different political contexts and careers, both share a disruptive leadership and the desire to break away from the conventional political system of their countries. While Bukele has sought to reform El Salvador from a pragmatic populism, Milei does it from a radical economic liberalism.

For Argentina's “anarcho-capitalist” head of state, an alliance with his counterpart may be a strategic move adding to several fronts, even though El Salvador is a small country and Bukele is not a widely acknowledged figure on the international scene. 

Nevertheless, there are some reasons why this alliance could prove useful. Bukele has garnered strong popular support domestically and between sectors of the regional right. For Milei, a leader who also presents himself as anti-establishment and disruptive, the association could strengthen his image as part of the regional current of “tough leaders” who want to change the rules of the game.

Looking tough on crime may help here.  Bukele has been recognised, especially in Latin America, for his “Territorial Control Plan,” and his handling of gangs and crackdown policies, such as the construction of mega prisons and the militarisation of public security. He has received international criticism because of alleged human rights violations, but his popularity in El Salvador has grown due to decreases in violent crime and homicides.

This approach is appealing to Milei, who defends strict security policies and seeks to legitimise the use of force to solve chronic security problems in Argentina. Association with Bukele can help justify the implementation of similar policies, citing where they have worked in other contexts.

El Salvador is small in geopolitical and economic terms, but Bukele has managed to build a narrative of success and leadership. His ability to defy traditional elites, institutions and international organisations (as he has done in his confrontation with the United States and rights organisations) can be seen as a defiant and disruptive leadership model. This is consistent with Milei’s narrative – he sees himself as a leader challenging traditional institutions and established consensus, both within and outside of Argentina. The alliance with Bukele does not add much in geopolitical terms, but it does in terms of ideological and symbolic legitimisation.

Forming an alliance with Bukele can help Milei project beyond Argentina, establishing bonds with other countries and leaders of a new Latin American right. This network could include other populist, nationalist or conservative players in the region.

Milei might be looking to learn from the way Bukele has maintained that popularity in his country, by controlling the media narrative too, dominating social networks, and focusing on visible and palpable results, such as reducing crime. 

An alliance could show the world that neither of them depends on the acknowledgment of international political elites to be successful. In fact, they might present their leadership as a challenge to “old international politics,” increasing their appeal to voters who feel far removed from traditional global institutions. They could both use international rejection as a kind of “badge of honour,” reinforcing the narrative that they are leaders fighting against established systems of power.

If Milei seeks to build a narrative of combatting the left, both nationally and regionally, the association with Bukele affords him a visible ally with experience in the field. They could both reinforce the narrative that they are the leaders who will bring new and effective solutions – despite the differences between them.