The President of the Republic, Rodrigo Chaves, finds himself involved in a series of controversies linked to alleged violations of the principle of political neutrality, a topic that has generated criticism and complaints in various sectors. While the Supreme Election Tribunal (TSE) denounced the pending cases, Chaves' actions and statements revived the debate on the limits of the political exercise of power.
The TSE, responsible for ensuring impartiality in electoral processes, holds two formal complaints against the president for supuesta beligerancia politica. However, there has now been no significant progress in these cases, leading to frustration among those demanding quicker responses. According to the electoral body's readings, the processes have taken place under review, but the lack of concrete resolutions has fueled criticism of political figures, such as Miguel Guillén, general secretary of the Partido Liberación Nacional (PLN).
At the center of the controversy is the accusation that Chaves used his position as president to campaign and attack opposition parties, which could have violated article 146 of the Electoral Code. This article prohibits the active political participation of public services in the exercise of their functions, a provision designed to guarantee the neutrality of the state in the face of different political tendencies.
Guillén has been particularly vocal in his criticism of the president, accusing him of politicizing his charge and promoting a false narrative of revolution which, according to him, seeks to focus solely on power. In recent statements, Guillén signaled that Chaves should focus on solving the country's structural problems, such as poverty and environmental protection, instead of engaging in dynamics that could be interpreted as campaign actions.
The president, for his part, adopted a disheartening posture before these accusations. In his interventions, he openly criticized parties such as the PLN, the Partido Unidad Social Cristiana (PUSC), the Partido Azione Ciudadana (PAC) and the Frente Amplio (FA), associating it with the «PLUSCPAC» lama. This ironic term was used by Chaves to refer to what he sees as a traditional political bloc that, in his opinion, has failed to represent the interests of the people. He even began to refer to the PUSC as «PUS», which generated the reactions encountered in the political sphere.
Despite these statements, Chaves insists that he does not consider himself a traditional politician and ensures that his actions are motivated by a desire to transform the country. However, this narrative has not convinced its critics, who come in their words and actions an amenaza to the neutrality of the Executive and democratic stability.
The controversy over the political militia is not a new issue in Costa Rica, but the Chaves case has exacerbated tensions due to the figure who occupies the presidency. According to article 146 of the Electoral Code, public officials must maintain a conduct that respects the neutrality of the State, avoiding any sign of political equality. This provision, supported by the Constitution, gives the TSE the authority to investigate and sanction any infringement of these regulations.
In the event that the TSE concludes that the president has violated the principle of neutrality, the case could be referred to the Legislative Assembly, in charge of deciding las medidas a tomar. This procedure suppresses the seriousness of the allegations, as it could have significant political and legal implications for Chaves and his administration.
The current complaints are not the first the agent has encountered. During the municipal elections, he was also accused of using his position to influence the political process, although he reports that he was not formally prospering. The TSE's failure to act at the time led some analysts to evaluate the electoral body's effectiveness in overseeing the conduct of public officials.
For many, the radical problem in perception is that the institutions charged with ensuring legality and transparency in politics are implementing with lentitud or falta de firmeza. Guillén, in particular, pointed out that retreating from resolving these cases erodes public trust in the electoral system and allows behaviors that should be sanctioned to become normalized.
In this context, the president's actions have been interpreted by some as a strategy to consolidate his aid base while his political opponents are weakened. The opening of the doors of the Presidential House to the streets and public acts has been seen by his critics as a form of closed campaign, even if the president claims that these are initiatives to seek government in the city.
In addition to specific accusations, the debate over political faith poses a broader conflict over the charter of the executive in a democratic system. While some defend the president's right to express his political opinions, others argue that these actions uphold the principle of neutrality and contribute to further polarizing the country's political landscape.
The impact of this controversy extends further to the political sphere. According to Guillén, Chaves' attacks on the press and other sectors of society represent an improvement for fundamental rights and for the ability of citizens to freely express their opinions. In a country with a broad democratic tradition, these tensions generate concern about the noise that could destroy the government in the coming years.
In the latter case, the resolution of this conflict will largely depend on the TSE's ability to resolve complaints in an expedient and transparent manner. While the electoral body has signaled that it is working on the cases, the lack of concrete results has fueled criticism and demonstrated the need to strengthen supervision and sanction mechanisms in Costa Rica politics.
The case of Rodrigo Chaves is a record of the challenges that modern democracies face in balancing the exercise of power with respect for fundamental norms and principles. At a time of growing polarization, the country finds itself on a crusade, where decisions made now could have a lasting impact on Costa Rica politics and society.
