X
X
Contact Us
Many thanks!
Your message has been sent and we'll try to get back to you as soon as possible.
This article was published over 2 years ago

Ecuador

Defeat in the Presidential Elections

Andres Arauz’s defeat in Ecuador’s presidential election is a defeat for the left. But hiding behind that defeat is a context of increasing class conflict. A “third round” of struggle on the streets will be needed to define the political direction of the country in the next period.

Wednesday, 28 April 2021 09:35 (UTC)
Last Update: Wednesday, 28 April 2021 20:36 (UTC)
Mauro Espinola
Alternativa Socialista (ISA in Mexico)
Print
379
X

The partial defeat of the left in elections in Ecuador, which conservative banker Guillermo Lasso has won, is only a partial reflection of the country’s political situation. Beyond the triumph of the right in the presidential election there is the beginning of an important process of recomposition of the Ecuadorian left after the October 2019 insurrection. For example, despite the triumph of the right in the presidency, “Correismo” (the broad Left political movement associated with the reformist presidency of Raphael Correa) has at the same time won elections to the National Assembly, with 48 seats of 137, 35%, making it the largest parliamentary group in the Assembly.

These results show not only Lasso’s weak position when it comes to governing the country or propelling neoliberal attacks against the Ecuadorian people, but also the political weakness of Ecuador’s left despite the October 2019 insurrection. The contradiction between the political representation of the working class and the ferocity of the class struggle means that a “third round” will have to be fought in the streets in the coming months and years.

The Previous Political Crisis

A central aspect of understanding Ecuador’s contradictory political situation, which will spread and exacerbate during the Lasso government, is the political crisis that Ecuador has been in since 2018 when former President Lenin Moreno embarked on a campaign against Correa, his former political ally. This crisis escalated following Moreno’s economic measures, such as the end of the hydrocarbon subsidy, which led to massive revolts in October 2019 led by Ecuador’s Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities, CONAIE and trade unions. In addition to this, at the beginning of the Covid-19 pandemic, Lenin Moreno’s management of it was one of the worst in the world, which meant the collapse of the health system in Guayaquil, Ecuador’s economic capital, with dozens of bodies abandoned on the streets as the morgues were full.

In this context of the crisis, with Lenin Moreno’s approval rating at less than 10%, 16 candidates stood in the first round of the Presidential elections on 7 February. This fact shows Ecuador’s deep political crisis. In this round, Andrés Arauz won 32.7% of the vote, while the banker and candidate of the right, Guillermo Lasso, obtained 19.74%. Very close behind (and amid credible allegations of voter fraud to benefit Lasso) was Yaku Pérez of the indigenous Pachakutik party with 19.38%, and Xavier Hervas, of the ‘Democratic Left’ achieved with 15.97%. These results showed the enormous discrediting of Ecuador’s establishment, including the once-hegemonic Correa-led movement.

As we pointed out in an article after the first round:

But contrary to the rhetoric of Correismo, which seeks to hold Lenin Moreno responsible for the situation by deeming him a traitor, the truth is that this crisis has arisen from the very government of Rafael Correa. Not only should we remember that Lenin Moreno was the candidate chosen by Correa himself as a successor, but also that Correa’s government oversaw the imposition of a series of extractivist projects, especially hydrocarbon ones in indigenous territories of the Ecuadorian Amazon.

Who is responsible for Lasso’s triumph?

Once the election results were released, one of the first thesis put forward to explain Arauz’s defeat was to point to Yaku Pérez and Pachakutik as responsible for Lasso’s triumph. Without acknowledging any error of Correismo, and by extension of mainstream Latin American “progressivism” in general, those who put forward this thesis try to simplify the election result without taking a closer look at the political situation. They have correctly pointed out Yaku Pérez’s inconsistencies and his terrible positions on the coup d’état in Bolivia in 2019 (which he made statements in support of) and even the US financing of various environmental NGOs closely related to indigenous sectors, but without explaining why Correismo has lost its political authority among the indigenous peoples.

Of course, the call for a “spoiled” vote by Pachakutik and Yaku Pérez was a major mistake, which has facilitated Lasso’s triumph. A call for a critical vote for Arauz could have meant the defeat of the right and the banker Lasso, as a strategic step to ensure better political conditions for the Ecuadorian people and a basis from which to to fight for the fulfillment of their demands without subordinating themselves to the politics of Correismo. However, the position of Pachakutik does not explain the increase in support for Lasso, which increased from 19% to 52% between the first and second rounds. While Yaku got 19% of the vote in the first round, spoiled votes in the second round were 16%, which means in real terms that Yaku’s call for spoiled votes had less of an impact than his candidacy in the first round. Even this assumes that all those who spoiled their votes actually voted in the first round for Yaku, which is simply extremely unlikely.

While Lasso’s vote increased between the first and second rounds by approximately 33%, Arauz’s only rose by 14.94%. This growth, less than half of the increase for Lasso, actually reflects the huge discontent with the years of correismo in power. Correa himself noted this in an interview conducted by BBC’s Ana María Roura, recognizing some mistakes, including Lenin Moreno’s nomination as a candidate in 2017.

“Even though... he betrayed us, we nominated him and he’s been the worst president in history. They haven’t forgiven us for that and now they say ‘ah, they’re running a new candidate for us, but not this time, we’re not going to vote for him, we’re voting for the banker.’ So, I think it’s one of the explanations”.

Rafael Correa

This is a crucial aspect. While the position of Pachakutik and Yaku Pérez influenced the electoral result, it is not the fundamental cause of Arauz’s defeat, but rather the mistakes of Correismo. In addition to the mistake recognized by Correa (Lenin Moreno’s nomination), it is also necessary to point out his silence in the face of Yaku Pérez’s denunciation of fraud in the first round in at least seven provinces. Uncovering and reversing this fraud could have meant Lasso’s defeat in the first round. This silence was no coincidence, quite the contrary. For the Correista leaders who now vociferously denounce Perez, it was strategically better that Lasso win the first round because they believed it would be easier to beat him than Pachakutik. In this way, Correa and Correismo’s silence was also complicit in Lasso’s triumph, for having called for the counting of 100% of the vote where fraud was reported by Pachakutik could not only have guaranteed Lasso’s defeat in the first round but also even won the support of these sectors in the second round on April 11.

A Partial Defeat, an Opportunity for the Reorganization of the Ecuadorian left!

The triumph of the neoliberal right is not an absolute triumph. On the contrary, this is just a partial defeat of the Ecuadorian oppressed, more a product of confusion and the lack of a radical and consequent alternative that is able to convince the majority on the basis of a project and a left-wing program to break with dependence on imperialism, extractivism and capitalism, than by a right turn by the working people of Ecuador. Contrary to the fatalism of those who see in Lasso’s triumph the end of history and the rise of the right, the victory by Correism in the Assembly raises precisely the opposite scenario. This apparent contradiction expresses on the one hand the discontent with Correismo, and at the same time an attempt to overcome it.

Although Rafael Correa himself has not taken long to guarantee Lasso smooth “governance”, the international economic crisis triggered by the pandemic and right-wing policies which Lasso will push forward, will again inspire Ecuadorian workers and indigenous people to take to the streets. In this context, Correa’s guarantee of allowing Lasso’s “governance” will be yet one more expression of Correa’s concessions to the right wing and Ecuadorian bourgeoisie.

In this scenario, marked by the economic and health crisis, the reorganization of Ecuador’s left is critical to fighting the attacks that Lasso will launch as president of Ecuador. To this end, it is essential to build a democratic and combative organizations, in which political decisions are taken democratically and not just by this or that leader. An organization armed with a socialist program that also raises the fight against imperialism and the right, as well as the struggle for the rights of the LGBTQ community, indigenous peoples and against extractivism and the defense of the environment.

As we wrote following the first round:

“In Ecuador, and throughout the continent, the unity in struggle of the indigenous people with the labor movement is a strategic precondition for the development of a movement capable of defeating the system.

This unity must be placed at the center of a new left. It is also indispensable to raise the demands of the workers of the countryside and the city, and to build with them a program that links the concrete struggle for these demands with the radical transformation of society, for a socialist transformation. This would in turn allow for greater political cohesion of the organization and greater rank-and-file control of its candidates, thus avoiding regrettable blunders such as those of Yaku Perez.

The struggle against extractivism and the defense of the environment cannot remain a mere denunciation; it requires a plan and a project of economic transition to break the chains of dependence to which world capitalism has subjected Latin America, turning it into a supplier of raw materials and cheap labor. This implies not only that the workers take control of the reins of the economy in Ecuador, but also a regional and global program. The struggle against extractivism is not possible in a single community, nor in a single country: it requires the alliance and solidarity of workers at the international level.

Extractivism is not a local problem but is part of the division of labor of global capitalism. Therefore, the only alternative against it, (which threatens not only indigenous territories but also the environment) is to build an internationalist alternative that raises this issue as part of its program, linking and articulating this demand with the demands of rural and urban workers, indigenous people, women, the LGBT+ community and the oppressed in general along socialist lines. This is precisely what we stand for in International Socialist Alternative.”

X
Solidarity Donation
Contact
Join
Report a Mistake
X
Report a Mistake
Found a mistake in the article? Found a broken link or an unloaded image or video?
We're absolutely committed to check the facts in all of our articles and reports in this website. If you find any factual inaccuracy, or also, any problematic typos or unclear parts, or any technical problem, please let us know and we'll take it into consideration.
Defeat in the Presidential Elections (28 Apr 2021)

Thank you.
Your message has been sent and we'll try to get back to you as soon as possible.
€11,193
2023 ISA Financial Appeal
Donate to Build a Movement on the Ground Against the War on Gaza, with an Amplified Socialist Voice