Correa is a symptom, not the illness

"If only Rafael Correa weren't the President of Ecuador". This is the mindset of many middle/upper class Ecuadorians who fear that the only thing Correa will be successful in spreading amongst the general population is poverty "la pobreza ya es de todos." Unforunately, however, Correa, like his left-leaning counter-parts in Bolivia, Venezuela, and Argentina, is only a symptom of a much larger issue. Allow me to explain. This will, of course, represent a massive generalization and will omit specific references to historical events but bear with me.

Economic liberalism reached Spanish America moreso after indepedence than immediately after colonization. You see, the original Spanish conquistadores were more interested in economically exploiting their newfound territories rather than radically altering the territories' internal economies. Then, when power vacuums in Spain created resentment towards the de-legitmized thrown the now wealthy criollo classes decided that enough was enough: they wanted to have complete control over trade policy in order to continue to create wealth and rid themselves of Spanish policies which required that the colonies trade only with Spain and never with each other (Hence, it is no coincidence that Simon Bolivar was from a wealthy hacienda owning family).

After indepence, Spanish American colonies entered into periods of civil war with liberals and conservatives fighting it out to the bitter end. The conservatives wanted to maintain two distinct republics (the republic of the Indians/The republic of the Spaniards), along with collective landownership (the source of the church's economic influence). The liberals, on the other hand, used a discourse which evoked "equality among men" (Bolivar was a late convert to this idea and only came on board after royalists successfully used the slave class against him in his first attempt to take power in Venezuela), and complete liberalization, including an end to the two republics, which up until that point acted as two separate governing structures for the different indigenous groups.

The liberals won the civil wars and began implementing a form of fuedalism, including the haciendia system for agricultural production. The indigenous, who were for the most part unfamiliar with the concept of private property, soon became "slaves in freedom" after they lost the majority of their lands through their lack of understanding of the new economic order.

Today throughout Latin America the hacienda system still stands; indeed, some of Latin America's most astonishing architecture can be found in the remnants of a previous economic order. Although few of the haciendas are still functional in the same way that they used to operate, the economic power relationship continues to reign: elite families continue to dominate strategic sectors while indigenous peoples continue to act as an underclass supplying cheap labour as a consequence of their vastness. The philosophy of postivism provided an intellectual base with which many Latin American elites viewed the world (for example, the slogan of positivism, order and progress, is inscribed in the Brazilian flag).

Jumping ahead, much of the 20th century in Spanish America was dominated by military dictatorships and puppet regimes supported by the United States in the name of fighting the cold war and preventing the "cuba disease" from spreading throughout the continent. Democratic movements were suppressed and those who stood for democracy were often tortured or killed. (Interestingly enough, in Ecuador's case widescale violations of human rights were much more common under the democratic governance of Leon Febres Cordero than under military dictatorship).

In 1979 democracy returned to Ecuador and the citizens chose the charming Jaime Roldos (Correa's hero) to lead their way toward the future. Roldos died in a mysterious plane crash in 1981 and it is almost as if the country never recovered. Of course, the next 3 elected Presidents were able to finish their terms but their accomplishments, when put under the microscope, were quite thin due to a combination of economic setbacks and a perpetually hung congress. Then the Presidents started falling: one by one after each other Bucaram, Mahuad, and Gutierrez were forced from office by a combination of street protests and congressional coups following accusations of mismanagement and corruption.

As a result, it is important to look at Rafael Correa as the product of the majority's frustration with both economic marginalization and widespread corruption and political instability. Correa, as any astute politician would, recognized these frustrations and developed a theme that would address these concerns. Many "educated" Ecuadorians consider the country's poor majority to be short-sighted and "selfish" in electing a populist President, but what they often fail to consider is that people support Correa for the same reason they themselves oppose him: self-interest. The majority of Ecuadorians have yet to see a noticeable improvement in their quality of life through the market. They therefore vote for a leader who promises to deliver by means of the government what the economy can't.

Furthermore, as the song goes, "when you ain't got nothin' you got nothin' to lose." It may be true that Correa has yet to present a plan that will stimulate the economy, but it's not like we had one before either. The status-quo works for the country's current business class because they've been able to make money despite (or in many cases, as a result of) the country's poor infrastructure, weak government and widespread corruption. In Peru's last election voters turned away from a left-leaning Chavez-like candidate because he promised radical reform. Alan Garcia, on the other hand, overcame being a disgraced politician from the past based on his promise to maintain low levels of inflation and high economic growth (Peruvians are no longer so satisfied with Garcia, but that's an issue for a different blog). In other words, Ecuador's economic conditions made Correa possible; if people weren't desperate they wouldn't turn to his "radical" change.

Anyhow, my point in all of this is to state that Correa's presidency and four electoral victories (possibly a 5th on Sunday?) are the result of specific conditions which make it possible for his message to resound with people. I am not saying that it is right, but what is wrong is to think that if only Correa weren't President, if only poor Ecuadorians would come to their senses, if only Ecuador had a "good" President, etc, or any other "if only" combination, that Ecuador would be better off. If Correa had not seized his moment pack in `06, or if Correa stepped down tomorrow, very little would change: someone else would come along with the same message because they want to associate themselves with the popular brand of social and economic justice. They may not be fair when they go about implementing that message, but voters usually find that out after the fact. (Labelling a politician power-hungry is the same as labelling a dog dog-food hungry. Of course they're power-hungry!!).

None of what I have written here is meant to apologize for Correa, Chavez, Morales, Fernandez, or any other left-leaning leader in the region. What I think needs to happen is that we alleviate ourselves from the "caudillismo" way of doing politics in which we put all of our hopes/faith/dreams/hate/blame etc into personalities and instead focus on changing other fundamental problems, like, for example, the inexcusable gap between the poorest and the wealthiest, in order to create the conditions in which radical measures are no longer deemed necessary.

There has been some interesting news lately about Ecuador's corruption index and an increase in the minimum wage. Unfortunately I didn't have a chance to address these issues but I will try in the future.