The end of elections in Nicaragua. Understanding the impacts.

Note: The views expressed in this text are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of this website.

President of Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, on December 14, 2024. (Photo: REUTERS)

The end of elections in Nicaragua. Daniel Ortega’s announcement represents one of the most explicit moves toward authoritarian consolidation in Latin America in recent decades. Although the country’s electoral process had already been widely questioned by international organizations, the declaration eliminates any attempt to preserve even the appearance of democratic competition.

During the celebrations marking the 47th anniversary of the Sandinista Revolution, Ortega stated that "there will be no more elections," justifying the decision as a way to prevent the opposition from returning to power. He also declared that he would work with the National Assembly to approve laws that would build a "wall" against what he called "coup plotters" and "traitors."

Since the 2018 protests, the government has classified virtually all opposition groups as part of a conspiracy backed by foreign interests. The novelty is that Ortega has moved beyond defending elections held under government-controlled rules and has begun questioning the very need for competitive voting. Politically, this marks a significant shift: instead of organizing elections widely regarded as fraudulent or lacking genuine competition, the government now openly acknowledges that it no longer intends to provide any formal mechanism for the peaceful transfer of power.

Daniel Ortega returned to the presidency in 2007 and has since promoted a gradual concentration of power. Over the past several years, his government has:

• reformed the Constitution to expand the powers of the Executive;

• gained control over virtually all state institutions, including the Judiciary, Congress, and electoral authorities;

• imprisoned presidential candidates and opposition figures ahead of the 2021 elections;

• restricted the activities of the independent press;

• shut down thousands of civil society organizations;

• stripped hundreds of exiled opponents of their citizenship.

  
  

In 2024, another constitutional reform further strengthened the government's inner circle by transforming Rosario Murillo, Ortega’s wife and then vice president, into co-president, institutionalizing a family-based power structure. In practice, many analysts had already classified Nicaragua as an authoritarian regime even before this week's announcement. The difference is that the government has now abandoned any formal commitment to competitive elections.

The United States' reaction

Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the decision demonstrates the regime’s "true authoritarian nature" and accused Ortega of acting out of fear of the popular will. He also declared that the United States and the international community must not remain passive in the face of escalating repression.

In an official post on X, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio criticized Daniel Ortega’s promise to abolish elections in Nicaragua. (Photo: Screenshot/X)

The U.S. position toward Nicaragua in recent years has been based on diplomatic condemnations, sanctions against members of the government, financial restrictions, and political isolation in international forums. By linking the situation in Nicaragua to regional security, Washington is also seeking to frame the crisis as a matter of hemispheric stability rather than merely an internal issue.

In addition to the United States, the Organization of American States (OAS) strongly criticized the decision. The organization's secretary-general stated that eliminating elections represents the definitive denial of the population's right to choose its leaders and warned that democratic backsliding in one country affects the entire region.

The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, also called on the government to restore the rule of law and guarantee free elections. Despite these criticisms, the practical ability of these organizations to change the behavior of the Nicaraguan government remains limited, particularly because Ortega has significantly reduced the country's cooperation with multilateral institutions.

Possible consequences

The definitive consolidation of dictatorship is manifested first and foremost on a symbolic and institutional level. By officially abandoning the electoral process, the regime gives up any narrative of legitimacy based on the popular vote, openly embracing a political structure devoid of formal mechanisms for the alternation of power. This authoritarian closure has an immediate impact on the country's foreign relations, leading to even deeper international isolation. Diplomatic pressure on Managua is likely to intensify through tougher economic and individual sanctions imposed by the United States and other international bodies. As a consequence of growing isolation from Western democracies, Nicaragua is expected to recalibrate its foreign policy by deepening partnerships with governments such as Russia, China, Venezuela, and Cuba, securing alternative political, economic, and diplomatic support.

On the domestic socioeconomic front, the expansion of repression and the deterioration of the political environment are likely to trigger a significant wave of emigration. Increased migration, driven by the forced exile of opposition figures, journalists, business leaders, and skilled professionals, places greater pressure on neighboring countries, particularly Costa Rica. Finally, this scenario leads to a sharp decline in institutional predictability. Without clear succession rules or democratic guarantees, the country's future becomes subject to the inherent fragility of highly personalized regimes, where political transitions no longer occur through elections but instead depend on elite disputes, economic collapse, or unpredictable internal crises.