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 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.
Positions of the opposition and observers
Opposition leaders have pointed out that the conduct of senior military commanders raises doubts about the institution’s performance on election day. The concern is that any irregular handling of ballot boxes, logistics, or security could affect the public’s perception of the transparency of the process, which in turn could trigger 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.
Strain in administration and civic involvement
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 the election draws near, the public is demanding a clear pledge from the Armed Forces regarding their principle of neutrality, along with an assurance that the integrity of the process, and thus the will of the people, will be upheld regardless of political affiliations.

_-_copia.jpg?w=800&resize=800,500&ssl=1)