Lat-Am Watch: Correa plays a different tune
Ecuador's magna carta: Leftist not Leninist
Ecuador's president Rafael Correa received the backing of nearly two-thirds of the electorate on Sunday as voters approved a new constitution meant to bring more equality to the small Andean nation. Yesterday evening, with most of the vote counted, Yes was beating No by 64 percent versus 28 far exceeding the prediction of pollsters who put Yes at around 55 percent before the referendum.
Ecuador is the third country in the region to consider a new magna carta in just over a year. In 2007 both the Bolivian and the Venezuelan government rolled out draft constitutions.
In Venezuela, whose president Hugo Chávez is often considered the leader of a leftwing group including Correa and Bolivia's Evo Morales, the referendum ended in a failure for the government. Just over half the electorate disagreed with the constitution drawn up by the Chávez government. Those who voted against the draft were appalled at certain bills, which, for instance, allowed the president to be indefinitely re-elected.
As for Bolivia, Evo Morales was only slightly more successful than his ally in Venezuela. For although a slim majority of the constitutional assembly approved the draft, they had to do so without the opposition present and inside an army barracks for fear of the angry crowds seeking to stop the vote.
That highly controversial bill will be submitted to a popular vote at the beginning of next year, Morales has said, although recent violent clashes between government troops and separatists suggest the referendum might be postponed. The Morales constitution would mean a much more centralized distribution of income from fossil fuels and would allow for the creation of a parallel judiciary based on indigenous customs.
Given these two precedents and given the largely overlapping political outlook of the leaders of all three countries, you'd be forgiven for assuming that the constitution approved in Ecuador is just as extreme and controversial as the other two.
However, if we take a closer look at the bill passed on Sunday, we see that that's not the case. Ecuador's new constitution, although definitely leftist and progressive in its proposals, is a far cry from the anti-democratic charters drawn up by Chávez and Morales.
First and foremost, the power of the executive. Whereas Chávez aimed to be re-elected indefinitely, even promising to remain in power well beyond 2020, in Ecuador presidential ambitions are more restrained. Re-election is allowed only once and a term is set at 4 years, unlike the six-year term enjoyed by Chávez.
To bring the new system into place elections for all branches of government will be held at the beginning of next year. If Correa is elected – which seems pretty likely given Sunday's result – then that means he will remain in power at least another four years, and possibly eight, making his total time as president 10 years. Chávez, even without his new constitution, will have reached his first decade in power this December and still has four more years to go!
Add to that the fact that Ecuador, unlike Venezuela, has suffered from an overbearing and extremely corrupt congress that severely limited executive powers, mainly in the interest of more pork. Even many opponents of Correa agreed that the relation between the two powers needed to be redrawn in a more balanced setup.
Admittedly, the new constitution allows the president to dissolve congress, but only once during his term and elections must be convened immediately.
The Venezuelan draft constitution also awakened much opposition because of the way in which it seemed to undermine private property, by introducing new kinds of 'communal property' and stressing the 'socialist' identity of the state.
Ecuador's new bill of rights is certainly not liberal in any economic sense, earmarking large industries such as oil and telecommunications as "strategic" and therefore to be controlled by the state. The state is dealt the leading role in the economy and has the power to intervene in markets. But that still falls far short of actually dismissing the rights of companies or landowners on principle.
(Considering that the supposedly neoliberal Bush administration just suggested spending over 15 times Ecuador's GDP on nationalizing financial companies, you have admit that current trends are in Correa's favour)
Another marked difference is the way indigenous communities are treated. The charter drawn up by Morales' supporters in Bolivia foresees in a strengthening of Indian legal customs putting them on par with the regular judiciary in what would amount to something like an indigenist sharia.
In Ecuador, nothing like that is about to happen. Although the new bill of rights stresses the rights of indigenous groups and is even themed around the idea of Sumak Kawsay – or "decent living" in Kichwa – the rule of law is still firmly in the hands of trained judges. In fact many indigenous groups objected to the fact that the new constitution considers only Spanish to be the official language and does not add Kichwa as an alternative as is the case in Bolivia with Quechua and Aymara.
Other clauses in the document, such as allowing civil marriage for gay partners and free health care for the elderly amount to what many European countries consider basic human rights.
So far from being an anti-democratic and authoritarian, Ecuador's new constitution is in many ways a sensible charter. And although its economic outlook is overtly statist and more often than not clashes with the values defended in this column that still doesn't make it a blueprint for socialism.
Ecuador's president Rafael Correa received the backing of nearly two-thirds of the electorate on Sunday as voters approved a new constitution meant to bring more equality to the small Andean nation. Yesterday evening, with most of the vote counted, Yes was beating No by 64 percent versus 28 far exceeding the prediction of pollsters who put Yes at around 55 percent before the referendum.
Ecuador is the third country in the region to consider a new magna carta in just over a year. In 2007 both the Bolivian and the Venezuelan government rolled out draft constitutions.
In Venezuela, whose president Hugo Chávez is often considered the leader of a leftwing group including Correa and Bolivia's Evo Morales, the referendum ended in a failure for the government. Just over half the electorate disagreed with the constitution drawn up by the Chávez government. Those who voted against the draft were appalled at certain bills, which, for instance, allowed the president to be indefinitely re-elected.
As for Bolivia, Evo Morales was only slightly more successful than his ally in Venezuela. For although a slim majority of the constitutional assembly approved the draft, they had to do so without the opposition present and inside an army barracks for fear of the angry crowds seeking to stop the vote.
That highly controversial bill will be submitted to a popular vote at the beginning of next year, Morales has said, although recent violent clashes between government troops and separatists suggest the referendum might be postponed. The Morales constitution would mean a much more centralized distribution of income from fossil fuels and would allow for the creation of a parallel judiciary based on indigenous customs.
Given these two precedents and given the largely overlapping political outlook of the leaders of all three countries, you'd be forgiven for assuming that the constitution approved in Ecuador is just as extreme and controversial as the other two.
However, if we take a closer look at the bill passed on Sunday, we see that that's not the case. Ecuador's new constitution, although definitely leftist and progressive in its proposals, is a far cry from the anti-democratic charters drawn up by Chávez and Morales.
First and foremost, the power of the executive. Whereas Chávez aimed to be re-elected indefinitely, even promising to remain in power well beyond 2020, in Ecuador presidential ambitions are more restrained. Re-election is allowed only once and a term is set at 4 years, unlike the six-year term enjoyed by Chávez.
To bring the new system into place elections for all branches of government will be held at the beginning of next year. If Correa is elected – which seems pretty likely given Sunday's result – then that means he will remain in power at least another four years, and possibly eight, making his total time as president 10 years. Chávez, even without his new constitution, will have reached his first decade in power this December and still has four more years to go!
Add to that the fact that Ecuador, unlike Venezuela, has suffered from an overbearing and extremely corrupt congress that severely limited executive powers, mainly in the interest of more pork. Even many opponents of Correa agreed that the relation between the two powers needed to be redrawn in a more balanced setup.
Admittedly, the new constitution allows the president to dissolve congress, but only once during his term and elections must be convened immediately.
The Venezuelan draft constitution also awakened much opposition because of the way in which it seemed to undermine private property, by introducing new kinds of 'communal property' and stressing the 'socialist' identity of the state.
Ecuador's new bill of rights is certainly not liberal in any economic sense, earmarking large industries such as oil and telecommunications as "strategic" and therefore to be controlled by the state. The state is dealt the leading role in the economy and has the power to intervene in markets. But that still falls far short of actually dismissing the rights of companies or landowners on principle.
(Considering that the supposedly neoliberal Bush administration just suggested spending over 15 times Ecuador's GDP on nationalizing financial companies, you have admit that current trends are in Correa's favour)
Another marked difference is the way indigenous communities are treated. The charter drawn up by Morales' supporters in Bolivia foresees in a strengthening of Indian legal customs putting them on par with the regular judiciary in what would amount to something like an indigenist sharia.
In Ecuador, nothing like that is about to happen. Although the new bill of rights stresses the rights of indigenous groups and is even themed around the idea of Sumak Kawsay – or "decent living" in Kichwa – the rule of law is still firmly in the hands of trained judges. In fact many indigenous groups objected to the fact that the new constitution considers only Spanish to be the official language and does not add Kichwa as an alternative as is the case in Bolivia with Quechua and Aymara.
Other clauses in the document, such as allowing civil marriage for gay partners and free health care for the elderly amount to what many European countries consider basic human rights.
So far from being an anti-democratic and authoritarian, Ecuador's new constitution is in many ways a sensible charter. And although its economic outlook is overtly statist and more often than not clashes with the values defended in this column that still doesn't make it a blueprint for socialism.
posted by PIT @ 12:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home