_-_copia_-_copia.jpg?w=800&resize=800,500&ssl=1 "Salary increases for Honduran generals")
Less than two months before the general elections, the LIBRE government authorized salary increases and selective bonuses of up to 33,000 lempiras per month for senior officers in the Armed Forces, while the troops receive only a fraction of those amounts. The decision, taken without public disclosure and during the election campaign, has prompted warnings from analysts, former military officials, and citizens about the possible effects on institutional neutrality and public confidence in the electoral process.
Former military commander Isaías Barahona stated that “these specific advantages represent a perilous bid to acquire ballots; they undermine the honor and neutrality of the military and pave the way for potential widespread deception orchestrated by the government.” Detractors concur that the uneven allocation might be seen as an effort to guarantee political backing from military officials, sparking worries regarding the validity of the election outcomes.
Risks to military impartiality
Experts in institutionality and security indicate that selective increases can have direct effects on the perception and functioning of the Armed Forces:
Politically motivated leadership: Significant and exclusive pay raises, awarded just prior to elections, might be seen as inducements to secure allegiance to the incumbent party, thus undermining institutional impartiality.
Internal Disparity: The imbalance between the compensation of senior staff and other employees could lead to internal friction, impairing the organization’s discipline, unity, and morale.
Public perception of involvement: The populace might view these disbursements as evidence of a secret arrangement to sway election outcomes, sparking concerns of potential tampering and undermining faith in the democratic framework.
Impact on institutional credibility: The genuine or apparent political engagement of military figures undermines the organization’s capacity to serve as an intermediary during periods of societal or political strife.
Consequences for governance and public engagement
The measure’s introduction, occurring near the election, aligns with a climate of intense division and close public observation concerning the process’s openness. Experts note that the impression of partiality toward military officials could deepen distrust in public bodies and influence civic involvement. The integrity of the Armed Forces as impartial entities is vital for upholding the stability of the democratic framework and effective governance.
At the same time, the measure opens a debate on the ethics and legality of the allocation of public resources. The gap between the benefits granted to senior officers and those received by the rest of the troops also raises questions about internal equity and the effectiveness of civilian control mechanisms over the military budget.
Institutional tension and transparency challenges
The case highlights the need to strengthen rules that ensure military impartiality during electoral processes and to make public spending decisions on security more transparent. Maintaining the neutrality of the Armed Forces is essential for institutional stability and for preserving citizens’ confidence in election results.
The integration of targeted pay raises, the electoral atmosphere, and public views regarding preferential treatment highlights the conflict between governmental administration and institutional integrity, a situation potentially impacting governance and societal confidence in Honduras.