Wow. One of the things I hadn't realized while I took some time off from writing about Ecuador is just how much a certain class of people (generally those who have access to the internet) HATE Rafael Correa.
Of course, he's always had his detractors: from the moment he dismissed congress (or had congress dismissed) for interfering with the approval of his plans to hold a constituent assembly, Rafael Correa has irked those who saw his government as a threat to private property and ostensibly democracy. Now, many of the individuals who make up the 'unofficial opposition' have became so radical in their hate that they've essentially given up on reason in exchange for paranoia and conspiracy theories. Email threads suggesting the entire police uprising was orchestrated by Correa flood in-boxes with many willing to believe anything that conforms to their pre-determined understanding of the world and the narrative they've constructed for themselves. Rafael Correa is the anti-Christ: he has scales on his back and hits babies with puppies.
As an impartial observer, I can't write without people criticizing me being pro-Correa. Unless I curse his name with every mention, I must be on his side. Otherwise, the fact that I'm now 'abroad' means that I'm too far detached from the situation to understand how bad things are.
What all of this means is that Correa's opponents now replicate his personality by refusing to listen to alternative positions or compromise on the ideology that frames their view of the world. Open and constructive debate amongst these people is dead: you are either with them or against them. It's as if the entire opposition suffers from wide-scale group think: if everyone in your family and social circle believes the same thing, and they all repeat it enough, it must be true, right?
The sad truth is that many of Correa's detractors have become as intolerant of different ways of interpreting events as they claim him to be. Earlier today on Facebook I wrote, "Si dejas que el odio te consume terminas entregando tu razonamiento a tus enemigos," which translates as, "if you let hate consume you you end up trading/offering your reasoning to your enemies." I worry less about Correa's ability to topple democracy in Ecuador because Ecuadorians have a very low tolerance for bad government. Besides, at a certain point he'll be gone and someone else will take his place. What I do worry about is the ability of democracy to thrive in a country where not conforming to a certain view of the world can get you ostracized from your family and friends. After all, Correa is not democracy: the people are democracy. The only way for Correa to 'acabar con la democracia' (to finish off democracy) is for people to stop being democratic, for government is but an institution whereas democracy is a value: if we throw out our democratic values because we're consumed by one leader's personality, we haven't really gained anything by his overthrow, have we?
Monday, October 4, 2010
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Background on the current political crisis in Ecuador
Disclaimer: I apologize for not having time to proof read this before posting.
A number of you have reached out to me and asked for some context in English on what is happening in Ecuador at the moment. Truth be told, this is a difficult task: Ecuador’s history of instability goes way back. There is, however, something different about what’s happening right now, and I’ll try to do my best to articulate what is going on.
For the sake of clarification, I must point out that I no longer live in Ecuador, and I stopped writing about politics in Ecuador, either professionally/personally, over two years ago. I do, however, continue to follow events there passionately: my and Michelle’s family is there, my friends are there, we own property there, and truth be told, as sentimental as it sounds, my heart is still there.
This morning Ecuador woke up to discover that the national police force had gone on strike. Not only had they gone on strike, they were rioting in the streets. Along with limited elements of the armed forces they took over and closed down the national airport, along with several other government installations throughout the country. Access to the three main cities, Quito, Guayaquil and Cuenca, was cut off. Transportation in the city stopped. Organized criminal elements, reacting quickly to the news, robbed at least three banks that I am aware of, including one which is 5 minutes from where Michelle’s grandparents live.
The primary motive for the strike was a new law, passed by congress but yet to be written into law, which changed their compensation structure, including limiting bonuses and promotions. I personally have not read the law, but there appears to be some debate as to whether or not the changes will ultimately benefit or hurt the average police officer. Regardless, the law also affects the military and some public servants, although for the most part these protests are primarily driven by the country’s 40,000 member police force. One police commander was stating, “if the country wants to cut our benefits, let’s see how well off they are without us.”
Generally your average Ecuadorian is always up for a good old fashioned protest. As evidence I need only point to the fact that the past three democratically elected presidents were overthrown by popular protests. Few, however, would openly admit to supporting the police with the exception of short-sighted die-hard partisans (of which there are many) who feel the ends justifies the means. I’ll get into that in a bit. The fact is that the police are held in quite low regard by most Ecuadorians. Corruption in the police force is as much a part of Ecuador as the volcanoes that dot the small country’s topography. Most traffic infractions, either alleged or real, are resolved on the spot through bribes. For those whose moral compass would prevent them from offering such a bribe, the threat of getting lost in the criminal justice system, equally as incompetent as the police force, immediately erases all righteousness. Every Ecuadorian has a story of a family member who, after being involved in some major or minor traffic accident (as either victim or perpetrator) spent weeks in jail as their case worked its way through the courts. Lastly, police officers tend to come from the lower dark-skinned classes, which in a country as classist and racist as Ecuador means that contempt is merely magnified. In other words, while many would support ousting Rafael Correa from office, few would openly sympathizes with the clearly under-paid and over-worked police force.
So how did we get to this point? Much of the current unrest is a manifestation of the division Rafeal Correa surfaces in Ecuador. If there is one thing his detractors and supporters would agree on it is that Correa polarizes: those who love him claim that he’s the first real leftist President to govern since Jaime Roldos, who died in 1981 a plane accident after only two years in office. Those who hate him will gladly spit venomous rants that refer to him as a dictator, a communist, a hater of the middle class, etc.
The fact is that, at least electorally, Rafael Correa is the most successful President in the history of modern Ecuador. Not only has he won half a dozen elections, he’s the first President since the restoration of democracy to win an election without a run-off vote. Furthermore, his initiatives have received widespread popular support: his initiative to re-write the constitution won over 80% of the popular vote; once the new constitution was written, it was supported by more than 2/3rds of the population. During those times I worked as an advisor to the European Union’s Electoral Observation group: despite concerns about the use of state resources in campaigns, we found the elections to be free and fair. Despite the hate he elicits in some, the vast majority of Ecuadorians have supported Correa throughout the 4 years he has governed. Most importantly, the Ecuadorian congress has traditionally been divided with parties representing different regional interests. Correa’s party was the first in a long time that won support in both the highlands, the coastal region, and the amazon.
Why do people hate him? The truth is that Correa divides both because of his politics and his personality. First, let’s tackle his personality: Rafael Correa is a mean and stubborn son of a bitch who governs with the righteousness and self-confidence of a 15th century crusader. Even his most fervent supports would probably admit he’s not the type of guy you’d want to be married to. Unlike many politicians who attempt to mask their faults in their public personality, Rafael embraces and celebrates his bull-headed style. He makes up his mind quickly and he rarely changes it. As a quick-talking costenio with a PhD in economics from the University of Illinois in Champaign, Rafael Correa has both the smarts and the style to talk loops around most people. Furthermore, his entire political strategy is based on intimidating his opponents into keeping thier mouths shut. For those who don’t speak Spanish you’ll regret not seeing him in sit-down interviews where he often tears apart reporters by questioning their assumptions and throwing statistics at them faster than an M16. His message: don’t ask me a tough question unless you’ve really done your homework.
The second part of Correa’s personality is his complete lack of self-doubt and his belief that if any group opposes him he’ll simply call an election and defeat them through the ballot box. Most likely as a result of shortened tenures of his predecessors, Rafael Correa has decided that he will govern by his own whim and will compromise with no-one. Though he entered politics on the wings of a grand coalition of leftist parties and movements, he quickly lost their support and they became his opponents. Most of the original founders of his political party have abandoned him after daring to question his judgement. Indeed, Correa, himself a former finance minister, disposes of a new finance minister every six months. Yesterday his own party, which holds a majority in congress, moved to veto a law he proposed and he threatened to invoke his constitutional right to dismiss congress and call new congressional and presidential elections. If the congressmen don’t like his laws, he reckoned, he’ll get new congressmen. All in all, Rafael Correa governs as if each and every day is his last, stopping at nothing and compromising with no-one to see his agenda come to fruition.
As mentioned earlier, Correa not only polarizes with his personality but also with his politics. Despite living in a middle-class neighbourhood himself, teaching at Ecuador’s foremost private institution and sending his kids to an expensive private school, Rafeal Correa has come to symbolize the enemy of the self-described middle-class, which for all intents and purposes is actually the upper class (although this point is debatable, I insist that Ecuador doesn’t really have a middle class. The people who I’m referring to here are generally people who send their kids to private schools and go to Miami at least once a year for vacation). Rafeal Correa clearly considers himself a defender of the poor, cut from the Catholic liberation theology cloth. He rails against ‘pelucones’ who in his mind represent the richest of the rich, the people who make the most and exploit their workers by paying them the minimum wage of $200 a month, fail to pay taxes and complain about the lack of government services. Although he probably had a specific and limited group in mind when he started leading chants against the super rich, his phrases came to represent a general disdain for the not-poor in the public imagination. Non-poor Ecuadorians, perpetually worried about the right to private property, saw Correa’s government as one that is hostile to their interests and to the economic well being of the country.
Despite deeply polarizing the population, Correa ironically brought a sense of stability to the country. After the most recent rounds of elections, Correa’s opponents began to accept the fact that he was going to govern for the next four years and possibly longer (the constitution mandates a maximum of two consecutive terms). Furthermore, because many investors started pulling out of Ecuador after Correa was elected, the global economic crisis did not have the grave impact it had elsewhere (although truth be told, it’s difficult to tell because Correa installed his own people in the Central Bank and mandated a change in the way GDP growth is calculated). This stability brought a sense of normalcy that has been missing in the country for the past two years. The sky didn’t fall, his popularity remained strong, and people went about their lives no longer anxious to overthrow the President. It’s also worth pointing out that in the 4 years he’s been on the political scene no real opposition has surfaced: the country’s richest man, Alvaro Noboa, has put his name forward a few times but few self-respecting individuals outside his regional support base would vote for him. The mayor of Guayaquil, Jamie Nebot, is one of Correa’s main detractors but refuses to enter national politics and is more intent on shoring up his support in the country’s coastal region.
The first hint of instability came when Correa began questioning the loyalty of his congressmen and women, but most people assumed that we’d go to elections again, Correa would win both the presidency and probably a slighly smaller majority in congress. Then shit hit the fan. As soon as the police announced their strike, Correa insisted on confronting the rebellion’s leaders facde to face. He showed up in person with a cane (he recently had a knee operation), and yelled, “if you want to kill the President, here he is, come kill him!” Rather than take up his offer of dialogue or regicide, the police launched tear gas at him and in the scruffle he hurt his leg. Correa was rushed to the ‘police hospital’ (why they took him there is beyond me) where he now claims to be held captive. He is refusing to negotiate with the police, stating only that “I’ll leave here as the President or as a cadaver”. As I mentioned before, he really doesn’t like to compromise.
In the meantime a group of policemen stormed and took over congress. When congressmen arrived to debate and repeal the bill that caused the consternation, the policemen wouldn’t let them in (Only in Ecuador!). In the meantime schools were cancelled and battles raged at the media outlets. Some outlets claimed to be overrun by police officers trying to prevent them from broadcasting (various journalists claimed to have been beaten by the police for filming their actions), whereas others were taken over by citizens with unclear motivations. Everyone waited for word from the armed forces: in the past, the military has traditionally been the organization that decides the fate of Presidents under-seige. So far, the military hierarchy is supporting the democratically elected government, despite many of soldiers sympathizing with the police officers’ cause.
In speaking with my friends and family over the phone and engaging in lively debates over Facebook and Twitter, most Ecuadorians agree that democracy should be restored, although many are happy to see Correa get his comeuppance. Even Correa’s main opponent, Jaime Neboa, stated that Correa should continue to rule but that he should ‘learn his lesson for causing this problem.’ There are many short-sighted people who feel the military should step in and depose Correa. These people unfortunately fail to see that the forces that are trying to take down the current government will do the same with the next and the next until Ecuador decides that democracy is the only means through which issues will be resolved.
My friend Rachel Carrell wrote an amazing PhD thesis at Oxford which I had the pleasure of proof-reading a number of years ago. Rachel argued that Ecuador has too many ‘veto holders’ who can stop any and all reform by paralyzing movement and commerce and forcing their will on the government and the people. Correa gave the impression that this era was over, such was the force of his personality and the strength of his hegemonic dominance of the Ecuadorian electorate. For the first time in four years a group powerful enough to disrupt the illusion of order has evoked its veto with unknown consequences. The one thing I can say for sure is that Correa wont back down: if anything Correa is a man of principle whose public persona is built on the idea that he never backs down, be his opponent business interests, foreign interests, leftist interests or anyone else for that matter. As I write this large crowds have gathered outside the Presidential palace to demand his release and a number of citizens are attempting to breach the barrier imposed by the police at the hospital where Correa is currently being held. Early reports suggest that at least one person has been killed.
I’ll try to update this spot with more brief messages as events unfold. In the meantime let’s hope that peace and order return to the streets of Ecuador.
A number of you have reached out to me and asked for some context in English on what is happening in Ecuador at the moment. Truth be told, this is a difficult task: Ecuador’s history of instability goes way back. There is, however, something different about what’s happening right now, and I’ll try to do my best to articulate what is going on.
For the sake of clarification, I must point out that I no longer live in Ecuador, and I stopped writing about politics in Ecuador, either professionally/personally, over two years ago. I do, however, continue to follow events there passionately: my and Michelle’s family is there, my friends are there, we own property there, and truth be told, as sentimental as it sounds, my heart is still there.
This morning Ecuador woke up to discover that the national police force had gone on strike. Not only had they gone on strike, they were rioting in the streets. Along with limited elements of the armed forces they took over and closed down the national airport, along with several other government installations throughout the country. Access to the three main cities, Quito, Guayaquil and Cuenca, was cut off. Transportation in the city stopped. Organized criminal elements, reacting quickly to the news, robbed at least three banks that I am aware of, including one which is 5 minutes from where Michelle’s grandparents live.
The primary motive for the strike was a new law, passed by congress but yet to be written into law, which changed their compensation structure, including limiting bonuses and promotions. I personally have not read the law, but there appears to be some debate as to whether or not the changes will ultimately benefit or hurt the average police officer. Regardless, the law also affects the military and some public servants, although for the most part these protests are primarily driven by the country’s 40,000 member police force. One police commander was stating, “if the country wants to cut our benefits, let’s see how well off they are without us.”
Generally your average Ecuadorian is always up for a good old fashioned protest. As evidence I need only point to the fact that the past three democratically elected presidents were overthrown by popular protests. Few, however, would openly admit to supporting the police with the exception of short-sighted die-hard partisans (of which there are many) who feel the ends justifies the means. I’ll get into that in a bit. The fact is that the police are held in quite low regard by most Ecuadorians. Corruption in the police force is as much a part of Ecuador as the volcanoes that dot the small country’s topography. Most traffic infractions, either alleged or real, are resolved on the spot through bribes. For those whose moral compass would prevent them from offering such a bribe, the threat of getting lost in the criminal justice system, equally as incompetent as the police force, immediately erases all righteousness. Every Ecuadorian has a story of a family member who, after being involved in some major or minor traffic accident (as either victim or perpetrator) spent weeks in jail as their case worked its way through the courts. Lastly, police officers tend to come from the lower dark-skinned classes, which in a country as classist and racist as Ecuador means that contempt is merely magnified. In other words, while many would support ousting Rafael Correa from office, few would openly sympathizes with the clearly under-paid and over-worked police force.
So how did we get to this point? Much of the current unrest is a manifestation of the division Rafeal Correa surfaces in Ecuador. If there is one thing his detractors and supporters would agree on it is that Correa polarizes: those who love him claim that he’s the first real leftist President to govern since Jaime Roldos, who died in 1981 a plane accident after only two years in office. Those who hate him will gladly spit venomous rants that refer to him as a dictator, a communist, a hater of the middle class, etc.
The fact is that, at least electorally, Rafael Correa is the most successful President in the history of modern Ecuador. Not only has he won half a dozen elections, he’s the first President since the restoration of democracy to win an election without a run-off vote. Furthermore, his initiatives have received widespread popular support: his initiative to re-write the constitution won over 80% of the popular vote; once the new constitution was written, it was supported by more than 2/3rds of the population. During those times I worked as an advisor to the European Union’s Electoral Observation group: despite concerns about the use of state resources in campaigns, we found the elections to be free and fair. Despite the hate he elicits in some, the vast majority of Ecuadorians have supported Correa throughout the 4 years he has governed. Most importantly, the Ecuadorian congress has traditionally been divided with parties representing different regional interests. Correa’s party was the first in a long time that won support in both the highlands, the coastal region, and the amazon.
Why do people hate him? The truth is that Correa divides both because of his politics and his personality. First, let’s tackle his personality: Rafael Correa is a mean and stubborn son of a bitch who governs with the righteousness and self-confidence of a 15th century crusader. Even his most fervent supports would probably admit he’s not the type of guy you’d want to be married to. Unlike many politicians who attempt to mask their faults in their public personality, Rafael embraces and celebrates his bull-headed style. He makes up his mind quickly and he rarely changes it. As a quick-talking costenio with a PhD in economics from the University of Illinois in Champaign, Rafael Correa has both the smarts and the style to talk loops around most people. Furthermore, his entire political strategy is based on intimidating his opponents into keeping thier mouths shut. For those who don’t speak Spanish you’ll regret not seeing him in sit-down interviews where he often tears apart reporters by questioning their assumptions and throwing statistics at them faster than an M16. His message: don’t ask me a tough question unless you’ve really done your homework.
The second part of Correa’s personality is his complete lack of self-doubt and his belief that if any group opposes him he’ll simply call an election and defeat them through the ballot box. Most likely as a result of shortened tenures of his predecessors, Rafael Correa has decided that he will govern by his own whim and will compromise with no-one. Though he entered politics on the wings of a grand coalition of leftist parties and movements, he quickly lost their support and they became his opponents. Most of the original founders of his political party have abandoned him after daring to question his judgement. Indeed, Correa, himself a former finance minister, disposes of a new finance minister every six months. Yesterday his own party, which holds a majority in congress, moved to veto a law he proposed and he threatened to invoke his constitutional right to dismiss congress and call new congressional and presidential elections. If the congressmen don’t like his laws, he reckoned, he’ll get new congressmen. All in all, Rafael Correa governs as if each and every day is his last, stopping at nothing and compromising with no-one to see his agenda come to fruition.
As mentioned earlier, Correa not only polarizes with his personality but also with his politics. Despite living in a middle-class neighbourhood himself, teaching at Ecuador’s foremost private institution and sending his kids to an expensive private school, Rafeal Correa has come to symbolize the enemy of the self-described middle-class, which for all intents and purposes is actually the upper class (although this point is debatable, I insist that Ecuador doesn’t really have a middle class. The people who I’m referring to here are generally people who send their kids to private schools and go to Miami at least once a year for vacation). Rafeal Correa clearly considers himself a defender of the poor, cut from the Catholic liberation theology cloth. He rails against ‘pelucones’ who in his mind represent the richest of the rich, the people who make the most and exploit their workers by paying them the minimum wage of $200 a month, fail to pay taxes and complain about the lack of government services. Although he probably had a specific and limited group in mind when he started leading chants against the super rich, his phrases came to represent a general disdain for the not-poor in the public imagination. Non-poor Ecuadorians, perpetually worried about the right to private property, saw Correa’s government as one that is hostile to their interests and to the economic well being of the country.
Despite deeply polarizing the population, Correa ironically brought a sense of stability to the country. After the most recent rounds of elections, Correa’s opponents began to accept the fact that he was going to govern for the next four years and possibly longer (the constitution mandates a maximum of two consecutive terms). Furthermore, because many investors started pulling out of Ecuador after Correa was elected, the global economic crisis did not have the grave impact it had elsewhere (although truth be told, it’s difficult to tell because Correa installed his own people in the Central Bank and mandated a change in the way GDP growth is calculated). This stability brought a sense of normalcy that has been missing in the country for the past two years. The sky didn’t fall, his popularity remained strong, and people went about their lives no longer anxious to overthrow the President. It’s also worth pointing out that in the 4 years he’s been on the political scene no real opposition has surfaced: the country’s richest man, Alvaro Noboa, has put his name forward a few times but few self-respecting individuals outside his regional support base would vote for him. The mayor of Guayaquil, Jamie Nebot, is one of Correa’s main detractors but refuses to enter national politics and is more intent on shoring up his support in the country’s coastal region.
The first hint of instability came when Correa began questioning the loyalty of his congressmen and women, but most people assumed that we’d go to elections again, Correa would win both the presidency and probably a slighly smaller majority in congress. Then shit hit the fan. As soon as the police announced their strike, Correa insisted on confronting the rebellion’s leaders facde to face. He showed up in person with a cane (he recently had a knee operation), and yelled, “if you want to kill the President, here he is, come kill him!” Rather than take up his offer of dialogue or regicide, the police launched tear gas at him and in the scruffle he hurt his leg. Correa was rushed to the ‘police hospital’ (why they took him there is beyond me) where he now claims to be held captive. He is refusing to negotiate with the police, stating only that “I’ll leave here as the President or as a cadaver”. As I mentioned before, he really doesn’t like to compromise.
In the meantime a group of policemen stormed and took over congress. When congressmen arrived to debate and repeal the bill that caused the consternation, the policemen wouldn’t let them in (Only in Ecuador!). In the meantime schools were cancelled and battles raged at the media outlets. Some outlets claimed to be overrun by police officers trying to prevent them from broadcasting (various journalists claimed to have been beaten by the police for filming their actions), whereas others were taken over by citizens with unclear motivations. Everyone waited for word from the armed forces: in the past, the military has traditionally been the organization that decides the fate of Presidents under-seige. So far, the military hierarchy is supporting the democratically elected government, despite many of soldiers sympathizing with the police officers’ cause.
In speaking with my friends and family over the phone and engaging in lively debates over Facebook and Twitter, most Ecuadorians agree that democracy should be restored, although many are happy to see Correa get his comeuppance. Even Correa’s main opponent, Jaime Neboa, stated that Correa should continue to rule but that he should ‘learn his lesson for causing this problem.’ There are many short-sighted people who feel the military should step in and depose Correa. These people unfortunately fail to see that the forces that are trying to take down the current government will do the same with the next and the next until Ecuador decides that democracy is the only means through which issues will be resolved.
My friend Rachel Carrell wrote an amazing PhD thesis at Oxford which I had the pleasure of proof-reading a number of years ago. Rachel argued that Ecuador has too many ‘veto holders’ who can stop any and all reform by paralyzing movement and commerce and forcing their will on the government and the people. Correa gave the impression that this era was over, such was the force of his personality and the strength of his hegemonic dominance of the Ecuadorian electorate. For the first time in four years a group powerful enough to disrupt the illusion of order has evoked its veto with unknown consequences. The one thing I can say for sure is that Correa wont back down: if anything Correa is a man of principle whose public persona is built on the idea that he never backs down, be his opponent business interests, foreign interests, leftist interests or anyone else for that matter. As I write this large crowds have gathered outside the Presidential palace to demand his release and a number of citizens are attempting to breach the barrier imposed by the police at the hospital where Correa is currently being held. Early reports suggest that at least one person has been killed.
I’ll try to update this spot with more brief messages as events unfold. In the meantime let’s hope that peace and order return to the streets of Ecuador.
Monday, September 29, 2008
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,” “
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
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
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?
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Results of Referendum on Ecuador's New Constitution
The results being reported so far (non-official exit polls) state that between 66% and 70% of Ecuadorians have voted to accept the new constitution, whereas 23%-25% voted against the document. In the battleground of Guayas 47% have voted in favour and 44% have voted against. I'll publish more when we have more official results.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
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.
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.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Correa's Communication Strategy
President Rafael Correa has many good qualities and many bad qualities. In an attempt to achieve some semblance of balance, allow me to expand on some of his more respectable characteristics.
First, Correa is a man who has the country's bests interests in his heart. I don't mean to say that every decision he makes is in Ecuador's best interest. Nevertheless, he does act out of a desire to see a better country for tomorrow, and not out of simple narrow self-interest, as was the case with Gutierrez and Bucaram (Mahuad was a different story altogether).
Furthermore, Rafael Correa has taken great strides to shun the kind of Presidential lifestyle that often leads to corruption and a strong sense of entitlement. Of course he does take the trolley lanes when he needs to get somewhere, and it goes without saying that he travels under heavy security. Still, by not living in the Presidential palace, by donating gifts given by foreign heads of state, by refusing to allow others to name things in his honour, by his wife's refusal to accept the post of "first lady," Correa has demonstrated that he will not allow power to corrupt him (in a material sense).
I'll give you an example. The father of a friend of mine works in the Cancilleria (Foreign Ministry). The man, who is an ardent anti-Correista, received a phone call one day from President Correa's brother Fabricio. Fabricio had called in order to see if it was possible to expedite the nationalization process of Marcelo Elizaga, the Argentine goalkeeper who plays for President Correa's favourite team, EMELEC. The principled civil servant responded that, no, he couldn't accelerate the process, but he would take due diligence to make sure the file received the correct attention. Fabricio was not pleased with the answer. A few days later my friend's father received a phone call from the President. He was not used to having the head of state call him about such issues and he immediately become nervous. "Is this Mr. X?," asked President Correa. "Yes," he responded. "Well Mr. X, I want to tell you something: The only Correa you respond to around here is Rafael, and not Fabricio, do you hear me?". I heard this story as an anecdote and then later saw similar things happen in public: Correa's brother and his sister have attempted to highjack his name in order to gain influence. President Correa has not had a problem repudiating even his own family members in public for what he sees as unlawful behaviour.
Where President Correa should improve is his communication strategy. Correa's handling of his domestic opponents is what leads comparisons to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia. Indeed, although there are significant differences between these heads of state (that'll be the topic of another post), all three have the tendency to attack the character and integrity of their opponents, painting the world in black and white. One difference is that whereas Chavez and Morales don't mind applying this same strategy to foreign policy, Correa has been much more careful to act as a statesman on the international scene (the Colombia spat, of course, being the one exception).
Correa's communication strategy is motivated by two different factors.
i.) Correa feels that he must speak the whole truth all of the time and never colour what he thinks. This leads to problems as much of what he is says is interpreted literally or easily manipulated (ie. The fact that he said the Malecon 2000 was "ugly" and "Miami-esque" led to charges he he was "anti-Guayaquil"). I believe his thought pattern is that so long as I speak the truth I'll never have anything to regret if they throw me out of office. The problem is that as a result of his communication strategy he often feeds the perception that he is a left-wing extremist bent on transforming Ecuador into another coming of Cuba. The truth couldn't be more different but that is not the point. Correa understands that the opposition is constantly trying to paint him red yet he continually refuses to do anything to correct that image. Analysts who follow the government are left to measure the difference between his discourse and his actions to determine how he is really going to act in any given situation (look, for example, at the history of his statements regarding foreign debt and Ecuador's record on the same topic during his time in office.)
ii.) Correa acts like the last soldier left alive in a bunker facing a charging army. He sees anyone who criticizes him as a necessary evil that must be defeated. He rarely extends an olive branch to anyone who has gone so far as to publicly criticize him or his government. Although he has taken strides to keep demoted ministers within the government, if they choose to leave by their own accord they can expect to experience his wrath once out of office, regardless of how much time, dedication, and loyalty they've previously given to him.
Correa could justify this attitude by stating that it is obvious who wants to stop his citizens' revolution and with the nation's media and financial sectors opposed to any type of change he must be on guard against those who approach in good faith but have ulterior motives. He'd point the example of Alberto Acosta: Acosta reached out to opposition members in the Constituent Assembly and gave them an opportunity to have the floor at a much higher proportion than what their numbers merited. Then, when it become clear that the assembly wouldn't finish its work on time without speeding up the process, the opposition cried foul and stated that the process was no longer democratic. If the assembly had extended its work period, Correa would argue, those same opposition members would cry that the Correa government hadn't kept its promise and the whole process was a fiasco.
A healthy doubt of suspicion in one of the most corrupt countries in the world is always heathy. Nevertheless, bunkering down in a "me against the world" attitude alienates a lot of potential supporters and turns off many who support the process but not every decision made by the Correa/PAIS government.
The best sign of this includes the, in my mind, quality assembly members who have essentially left the PAIS fold. People like Fernando Vega, Monica Chuji, etc., are individuals who made PAIS an open tent diverse group (the anti-abortion model Rosana Quierolo was a one trick poney who no-one will miss. Her inclusion on the ticket was a recolection of the traditional way of "doing" Ecuadorian politics and should never have happened to begin with). Their absense will add to the argument that PAIS has become a group of "alzamanos" (Hand raisers) who simply permit Correa to govern without effective checks and balances.
Although I was encouraged after the first referendum when Correa used his victory speech to call for reconciliation, I think what needs to happen is for him to take the first steps in that direction. Without wanting to be completely pessimistic, a victory or a loss in the upcoming election would provide the perfect opportunity for that type of reconciliation to take place. First comes first though, Correa needs to modify his communications strategy. If not the rest of his mandate (which could be 6 months, 4 years, or 8 years), will see a continuation of the divisive cut-throat politics that have characterized his administration. It's not healthy for him, it's not healthy for the country, and its definitely not healthy for the future.
First, Correa is a man who has the country's bests interests in his heart. I don't mean to say that every decision he makes is in Ecuador's best interest. Nevertheless, he does act out of a desire to see a better country for tomorrow, and not out of simple narrow self-interest, as was the case with Gutierrez and Bucaram (Mahuad was a different story altogether).
Furthermore, Rafael Correa has taken great strides to shun the kind of Presidential lifestyle that often leads to corruption and a strong sense of entitlement. Of course he does take the trolley lanes when he needs to get somewhere, and it goes without saying that he travels under heavy security. Still, by not living in the Presidential palace, by donating gifts given by foreign heads of state, by refusing to allow others to name things in his honour, by his wife's refusal to accept the post of "first lady," Correa has demonstrated that he will not allow power to corrupt him (in a material sense).
I'll give you an example. The father of a friend of mine works in the Cancilleria (Foreign Ministry). The man, who is an ardent anti-Correista, received a phone call one day from President Correa's brother Fabricio. Fabricio had called in order to see if it was possible to expedite the nationalization process of Marcelo Elizaga, the Argentine goalkeeper who plays for President Correa's favourite team, EMELEC. The principled civil servant responded that, no, he couldn't accelerate the process, but he would take due diligence to make sure the file received the correct attention. Fabricio was not pleased with the answer. A few days later my friend's father received a phone call from the President. He was not used to having the head of state call him about such issues and he immediately become nervous. "Is this Mr. X?," asked President Correa. "Yes," he responded. "Well Mr. X, I want to tell you something: The only Correa you respond to around here is Rafael, and not Fabricio, do you hear me?". I heard this story as an anecdote and then later saw similar things happen in public: Correa's brother and his sister have attempted to highjack his name in order to gain influence. President Correa has not had a problem repudiating even his own family members in public for what he sees as unlawful behaviour.
Where President Correa should improve is his communication strategy. Correa's handling of his domestic opponents is what leads comparisons to Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Evo Morales in Bolivia. Indeed, although there are significant differences between these heads of state (that'll be the topic of another post), all three have the tendency to attack the character and integrity of their opponents, painting the world in black and white. One difference is that whereas Chavez and Morales don't mind applying this same strategy to foreign policy, Correa has been much more careful to act as a statesman on the international scene (the Colombia spat, of course, being the one exception).
Correa's communication strategy is motivated by two different factors.
i.) Correa feels that he must speak the whole truth all of the time and never colour what he thinks. This leads to problems as much of what he is says is interpreted literally or easily manipulated (ie. The fact that he said the Malecon 2000 was "ugly" and "Miami-esque" led to charges he he was "anti-Guayaquil"). I believe his thought pattern is that so long as I speak the truth I'll never have anything to regret if they throw me out of office. The problem is that as a result of his communication strategy he often feeds the perception that he is a left-wing extremist bent on transforming Ecuador into another coming of Cuba. The truth couldn't be more different but that is not the point. Correa understands that the opposition is constantly trying to paint him red yet he continually refuses to do anything to correct that image. Analysts who follow the government are left to measure the difference between his discourse and his actions to determine how he is really going to act in any given situation (look, for example, at the history of his statements regarding foreign debt and Ecuador's record on the same topic during his time in office.)
ii.) Correa acts like the last soldier left alive in a bunker facing a charging army. He sees anyone who criticizes him as a necessary evil that must be defeated. He rarely extends an olive branch to anyone who has gone so far as to publicly criticize him or his government. Although he has taken strides to keep demoted ministers within the government, if they choose to leave by their own accord they can expect to experience his wrath once out of office, regardless of how much time, dedication, and loyalty they've previously given to him.
Correa could justify this attitude by stating that it is obvious who wants to stop his citizens' revolution and with the nation's media and financial sectors opposed to any type of change he must be on guard against those who approach in good faith but have ulterior motives. He'd point the example of Alberto Acosta: Acosta reached out to opposition members in the Constituent Assembly and gave them an opportunity to have the floor at a much higher proportion than what their numbers merited. Then, when it become clear that the assembly wouldn't finish its work on time without speeding up the process, the opposition cried foul and stated that the process was no longer democratic. If the assembly had extended its work period, Correa would argue, those same opposition members would cry that the Correa government hadn't kept its promise and the whole process was a fiasco.
A healthy doubt of suspicion in one of the most corrupt countries in the world is always heathy. Nevertheless, bunkering down in a "me against the world" attitude alienates a lot of potential supporters and turns off many who support the process but not every decision made by the Correa/PAIS government.
The best sign of this includes the, in my mind, quality assembly members who have essentially left the PAIS fold. People like Fernando Vega, Monica Chuji, etc., are individuals who made PAIS an open tent diverse group (the anti-abortion model Rosana Quierolo was a one trick poney who no-one will miss. Her inclusion on the ticket was a recolection of the traditional way of "doing" Ecuadorian politics and should never have happened to begin with). Their absense will add to the argument that PAIS has become a group of "alzamanos" (Hand raisers) who simply permit Correa to govern without effective checks and balances.
Although I was encouraged after the first referendum when Correa used his victory speech to call for reconciliation, I think what needs to happen is for him to take the first steps in that direction. Without wanting to be completely pessimistic, a victory or a loss in the upcoming election would provide the perfect opportunity for that type of reconciliation to take place. First comes first though, Correa needs to modify his communications strategy. If not the rest of his mandate (which could be 6 months, 4 years, or 8 years), will see a continuation of the divisive cut-throat politics that have characterized his administration. It's not healthy for him, it's not healthy for the country, and its definitely not healthy for the future.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
On Abortion
It's always a shame but I guess expected when debates concerning very complex issues, such as constitutions, get shaven down to their dumbest common denominator. Take, for instance, the Catholic Church's opposition to the constitution. The Chruch states that the constitution is "immoral" because it "legalizes abortion" and allows for marriage between individuals of the same sex. Let's examine the articles in question:
All of this leads me to my next post, coming this week, in which I'll argue that the opposition is as much to blame for Correa's success as he is responsible for it. Trying to re-active Catholic's instincts to start witch hunts is an insult to our intelligence.
Download the full Spanish version of the Constitution here:
http://asambleaconstituyente.gov.ec/documentos/constitucion2008/definitiva_constitucion.pdf
MCA
Art. 46. ... "El Estado reconoce y garantiza la vida, incluido el cuidado y la protección desde la concepción"
The state recognizes and guarantees life, including care and protection, from conception."
One blogger states that "the coma located after "life" is a trap that divides the article into two, which from a legal point of view means that the state will only give care and protection from the moment of conception. Protection and conception is one thing, GUARANTEE THE RIGHT TO LIFE IS ANOTHER." (my translation)
(http://movimientoecuadorlibre.blogspot.com/2008/07/constitucion-abortista.html)
Now I am as much of a lover of punctuation as the next guy, but if you're willing to defend a position on the constitution based on the placement of a comma, you really have entered into grammar Nazi territory. I think it would be very difficult to find a case in the history of Ecuadorian law in which someone successfully argued that a misplaced comma allowed them to break the law. The weakness of these arguments demonstrates just how desperate some members of the opposition have become.
Second Article:
2.) All individuals have the right to decide when and how many children to have.
http://www.aciprensa.com/noticia.php?n=21741
According to the church this is blasphemy. What is sad to me, as a Catholic, is how the Church is able to ignore all of the advances made for women in this document (alternate listing in elections, pay equality, freedom from discrimination, etc), in order to focus its energy on imposing a ridiculous interpretation on this otherwise straightforward article. But let's turn this argument around. Why shouldn't a woman have the right to decide how many children she should have? Why should a husband maintain the right to tell his wife that she is going to have five children and if she doesn't like it, well, she can get a divorce (oh wait, the Church doesn't like that option either). The church's declaration that this article will lead to wide-scale abortion is not only pathetic but intellectually dishonest. Surely they could have come up with some better arguments than to say that a woman's fundamental right to decide how many children to have is necessarily going to open the abortion floodgates.
Download the full Spanish version of the Constitution here:
http://asambleaconstituyente.gov.ec/documentos/constitucion2008/definitiva_constitucion.pdf
MCA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
