Analyzing the results

Analyzing the results:

63% of Ecuadorians vote “Yes” to the new constitution inspired by President Rafael Correa’s “Acuerdo Pais” party.

A few quick observations about the results of yesterday’s elections:

Without meaning to take credit away from the victors, one has to consider all of the actors in this match. Followers of soccer know that poor defense is as much a cause of victory as outstanding offense. As such, the opposition’s strategic and tactical failures were undoubtedly influential in cementing the “Yes” victory. Despite the facts that: the opposition was equipped with funds coming from the country’s largest financial interests; that recognizable figures such as the Mayor of Guayaquil and the Catholic Church led the resistance; that well organized political parties and movements such as Lucio Gutierrez’s PSP and the UDC helped back the “no” effort; that most of the country’s major media outlets, including television and radio, largely backed the “No” vote and framed their coverage as such, the “yes” vote still managed to triumph with almost a 2-1 margin. How could this be?

Although I’m not a sociologist, my belief is that the “No” campaign failed because a.) it lacked a unifying message and b.) the messages it chose to send were exaggerated to the point of ridiculous. For example:

Jaime Nebot tried to frame the debate about the constitution as an “us vs. them,” “Guayaquil vs. them,” “our success vs. their failure” question. For most people that discourse became a “Nebot Vs. Correa” and people chose their loyalty accordingly, especially after Nebot threatened to resign if the “No” didn’t win in Guayaquil. Despite the “No” vote slightly edging out the “yes” in Guayaquil (it’s difficult to assign intention to blanck and void ballots), neither Correa nor Nebot can safely claim to “speak” for Guayaquil and its citizens. Over the next few days members of Acuerdo Pais will continue to insist that Ecuador is not “divided,” as proponents of the “No” tend to suggest, but what is clear is that at least Guayaquil is deeply divided. Let’s hope that the Nebot camp and the Correa camp take advantage of this moment to seek some level of dialogue and accommodation between the two levels of government.

The Catholic Church attempted to diffuse a rather stretched argument that the constitution would lead to wide-scale abortion and the eventual downfall of the family unit. Even though Ecuadorians are overwhelmingly Catholic, few (except those already opposed to the project for ideological reasons) bought this argument. Correa has made his Catholicism a central part of his public image and the population at large was not willing to believe he had some hidden subversive plan to legalize abortion and hand the institution of marriage over to homosexuals. Ecuadorians have demonstrated a great deal of sophistication in being able to analyze arguments based on false pretenses.

Political parties such as the PSP, UDC, and PRIAN have yet to put forward credible candidates that can rival Rafael Correa in terms of popularity and charisma. In fact, many saw Alvaro Neboa’s last minute dive into the campaign as a factor that would help the “yes” campaign rather than hurt it. For Lucio Gutierrez, some of his party’s assembly members supported the constitution whereas others did not, thus perpetuating the image of a party without a clear direction. In addition, Correa has worked hard to destabilize traditional parties’ strongholds, especially in the coast, by reaching out through social programs, investment in infrastructure, and executive presence (think the “Travelling Cabinet Meetings”). Two years of these policies have been noticed by non-urban Quito/Guayaquil residents and they rewarded the President handsomely.

Lastly, the message transmitted by these political parties bordered on the absurd. This tactic did not work during the Presidential and initial constituent assembly elections when the message was that Rafael Correa was a puppet of Hugo Chavez bent on reverting Ecuador into a Cuban-style Communist government. This time around advertisements showing kids taking drugs and blaming their parents for supporting the government reiterated Correa’s message that the opposition was a collection of desperate oligarchs only concerned with protecting their own interests. Still, where the opposition failed most was in putting forth an alternative. Ecuadorians heard much about what was wrong with the constitution but few other proposals were put forward.

President Rafael Correa, for all his faults, has once again proved himself to be a masterful campaigner. In fact, one of the most common criticisms is that he is a man constantly in campaign who neglects his responsibilities to govern. Regardless, Correa was successful in managing the impression that Ecuador would take a step backwards into instability and corruption by rejecting the constitution. Lastly, Correa took a two-pronged approach of discrediting both the message and the sender when dealing with the opposition. He demonstrated that his figure is powerful enough to take on the country’s elites, media outlets, major religion, and traditional political parties all at once.

Most importantly though two years of Rafael Correa’s government have yet to give Ecuadorians a reason NOT to vote for him. The economy hasn’t grown at a healthy rate but it hasn’t necessarily nose-dived either. Inflation hurt many but appears to be under control. International relations are at an acceptable level to most and the government appears to be anything but directionless. This election, as many have pointed out, was more a referendum on Correa’s leadership than it was on the constitution. This should not be surprising since the nuances of constitutional law will rarely become issues of public debate. The merits of the most controversial proposals were discussed but few had a strong understanding of the consequences of the entirety of the document. This, however, rather than being the fault of any one group or individual, is a problem specific to democracies. People vote along mostly unpredictable lines and no amount of public education can change that (as I watch the elections in my native Canada and the USA where I currently reside the idea that the number of university educated citizens changes the nature of elections has been completely discredited in my opinion).

Where the country will go from here is the subject of another post which I intend to write shortly. What I will say is that the challenge of writing a new constitution is relatively easy compared to the task of creating institutions and a culture in which the rule of law is respected and upheld. Correa has fulfilled one objective, but can he accomplish the other?