Public discourse has escalated as the November 30 elections draw near. Academics, civil society groups, and political figures are voicing concern about what they perceive as indications of partiality within the Armed Forces, an element that could jeopardize the institutional impartiality essential for ensuring a valid process.
Indicators of prejudice and organizational issues
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 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 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.
