All economic and political rights were united around Daniel Noboa, while social progressivism supported Luisa González
More than 13 million Ecuadorians are called to vote this Sunday.
For the second round of elections in Ecuador (October 15, 2023), three political positions have been defined: one in favor of Luisa González; another by Daniel Noboa; and the third for the zero vote.
Predictably, all the economic and political right were united around Mr. Noboa, under a slogan repeated since the 2009 presidential election: “Everyone against Correism.”
On the other hand, the social progressivism that L. González supports and in which the important “Correismo” sector is integrated, consists of a diffuse conglomerate of middle classes, small and medium-sized entrepreneurs, social movements and popular sectors, including workers and indigenous peoples, separated from the decisions of their class organizations and leaders.
The null vote was claimed by the traditional left, united by its radical anti-Correismo, a stubborn position since it broke with the Correa government. Although they have not yet gone beyond ideological slogans, they argue that the elections are a “trap,” that we must rally around a “program,” and claim that while Noboa is the “direct representative of the oligarchies,” González is ” conservative representative of Correísta populism” (https://rb.gy/j0f3y). But in four decades they have failed to create the historic alternative that would allow them to be recognized as the “authentic and true” left, as they usually describe it.
According to the different opinions on the situation, the debate between the candidates in the first round would have been in favor of D. Noboa, while the debate between the two finalists in the second round would have been in favor of L. González. It is said that everything is a question of political “marketing”. But what should actually be taken into account is that both candidates represent two different economic and social models, which are not changed by a debate in front of the camera. And it is necessary to put the problem in a historical perspective.
In the 19th century, cocoa agro-exporters dominated the national economy. Between 1912 and 1925 they controlled the state directly in alliance with bankers and merchants. It is the first “plutocratic era” in which there were no governments influencing their interests or regulating the “free” market. There were no taxes like income taxes. Labor legislation was also systematically not implemented, although the eight-hour day was introduced in 1918 (and prison for common debts was abolished). It was a private business paradise. It was there that the oligarchic slogans were born, which are reproduced to this day and which are summarized in the idea that the economic world is a world of unlimited private accumulation coupled with social dominance.
Although the banana boom began in the mid-20th century, it fostered nascent Ecuadorian capitalism, which relied on state resources, tax evasion, and widespread super-exploitation of workers. D. Noboa, son of banana magnate Álvaro Noboa, comes from this oligarchic matrix that manifested itself in the second plutocratic era that began in 2017 and consolidated agro-export-commercial-banking capitalism. The fact that the same candidate talks about salaries and public services such as education and health (https://rb.gy/xyr25) and tries to create the appearance of “neoliberal progressivism” contradicts numerous studies that show the unacceptable exploitation of labor, from which they suffer. Banana workers (for example: “Banana Status in Ecuador: Accumulation, Inequality and Labor Rights”, published by FES-ILDIS, 2022). You can also consult the Internal Revenue Service (SRI) ranking of “fixed debts”, which highlights “Exportadora Bananera Noboa” with a huge tax debt to the state (https://rb.gy/pwes0). Will President Noboa (if this happens) collect this debt? In addition, D. Noboa’s position does not seem to coincide with the position of his vice-presidential candidate Verónica Abad, a “libertarian” supporter of the ideas of the Argentine Javier Milei, who believes that everything must be privatized (including education, health and social security).
The neoliberal-oligarchic business model is the order of the day. It would supposedly restore a country “destroyed” by Correism. But as it happened with business leaders, since 1979, Ecuador began the longest democratic-constitutional era in its history, when G. Lasso, supported by a unified power bloc, captured the state and launched his “class struggle” against the majority of the population The national population has suffered the same historical deterioration as in the first plutocratic era, and even worse since today international organized crime has penetrated the public and private spheres. A country is literally stagnant, in decline, without institutions and with growing insecurity among its citizens, in the midst of powerlessness.
A century ago, the exit was forced by the Julian Revolution (1925-1931), which for the first time established an active regulatory role for the state, instituting direct taxes on income and profits, sanctioning private banks, and establishing the Central Bank, the Comptroller’s Office, and the Superintendency of Banks , and served workers in the creation of the Ministry of Social Security and Labor, the adoption of the first labor laws, and the establishment of the Pension Fund, the predecessor of the IESS.
From the same historical perspective, the government of Rafael Correa (2007-2017) represented a certain continuity with the Julian Revolution and its economic policies. For this reason, personal persecution, legal disputes, myths about his government and the unity of the economic and political right remain Preventing his “return” remains a powerful force to this day. The candidacy of L. González, supported and promoted by the Citizens’ Revolution, proposes the restoration of the path to a model of social economy, then promoted by R. Correa, which is obviously located at the opposite end of neoliberal oligarchism. That is why it has raised the support and even the hopes of the broad sector of Ecuadorian progressivism. Of course, the “shadow” of Rafael Correa arouses passions of all kinds, including in the field of social progressivism itself (an obviously ambiguous concept for the social sciences). But it is also important to note that what is at stake is not the cycle represented by the Correa government, but another, perhaps falling within the weak “second cycle” of Latin American progressivism. Finally, it should be borne in mind that other Latin American countries also express polarization between social forces that promote either a neoliberal business model or a social economy. The phenomenon is a reaction to a larger historical process in which there is a global challenge to the hegemony of the United States and its vision of economics and democracy. A multipolar world is rapidly taking shape, with China, Russia and the BRICS rising, while sovereignist positions against neo-colonialism are gaining strength in Africa. In Latin America, the rise of progressivism also represents the questioning of Monroe Americanism. And the region has enough historical experience to understand that the US. They are unwilling to accept governments capable of questioning their principles and harming their interests.
(Taken from selected signatures)
