Armed Forces’ involvement in Honduras elections sparks controversy

In Honduras, the approach of the general elections on November 30, 2025, has intensified concerns about the integrity of the electoral process. Two sources of tension have emerged: suspicions of possible manipulation of the Public Prosecutor’s Office against members of the National Electoral Council (CNE) and growing mistrust of the role of the Armed Forces as guarantors of the democratic process.

There are reports that the Public Prosecutor’s Office is preparing formal charges against CNE councilors, which has caused alarm among political sectors and organizations defending democracy. It is alleged that this judicial process is politically motivated and directed against councilors who have expressed critical or independent positions toward the ruling party. The possible prosecution of CNE council members comes at a delicate time, when the electoral body must guarantee the impartial organization of the electoral process, the credibility of the results, and the confidence of political parties and citizens.

Risk of institutional control and mistrust

These actions could undermine the autonomy of institutions and reduce public trust in the electoral system. Opposing parties and civic organizations have raised alarm, calling for inquiries rooted in tangible proof rather than political vendettas. The international community has been urged to denounce any efforts to manipulate the CNE and to observe the conduct of the Office of the Attorney General.

At the same time, public and political mistrust of the role of the armed forces as guarantors of the democratic process has intensified. Opposition party leaders, civil society organizations, and independent analysts have expressed concern about suspicious removals and withdrawals within the military, the ideological and operational rapprochement between the executive branch and the Armed Forces, the active presence of military elements in civilian processes and electoral events, and the lack of transparency in the planning of military deployment during the elections.

Fear of militarization and calls for vigilance

In the course of the primary elections held in March, there were reports of postponements in the distribution of voting materials along with an unexpected presence of soldiers at some polling places, which has heightened worries about a potential militarization of the election process. There are apprehensions that the military, swayed by individuals aligned with the current government, might be utilized as a means to enable election rigging or to suppress public demonstrations.

Growing mistrust has led to urgent calls for international organizations to send observation missions and demand guarantees of military neutrality and operational transparency. Citizen groups have begun to organize social monitoring networks to document possible abuses or irregularities. The credibility of the November 30 electoral process will depend on the conduct of institutions and citizen vigilance.