Mass Protests in Ecuador , What Else is New?

Throughout its history, Ecuadorian democracy has been plagued with instability. Regionalism and personalism have been defining features of the political culture, and ethnic and class division have prompted political parties to behave as electoral machines in vying for segments of the elite. When democracy returned in 1979, ineptitude, corruption, and party splits followed. Attempts at important reforms stalled in highly fragmented Congresses where vested interests came before policy making. The country’s inefficient policymaking process has vastly inhibited the success of policy initiatives and left the country vulnerable to external shocks (natural disaster, oil exports, high levels of foreign debt, etc).

These trends, along with economic problems, have likely encouraged Ecuadorians to back anti-party, populist leaders such as Mr. Correa. But the appeal is almost always short-lived. This past week, tens of thousands took to the streets of the industrial hub city Guayaquil to send a message of opposition to the president’s reform agenda. It seems likely that any power consolidating efforts by Correa this May will be vocally rejected by the populous. But historically, isn’t this a recurring theme? Ecuador has not been able to find equilibrium for many years and this suggests a systemic problem.

Under such circumstances it’s hard not to see the merit in the argument for a Parliamentary system vs. the current Presidential system. Perhaps a majoritarian model in the fashion of Great Britain would not be in the cards for such a polarized and volatile country. However, a New Zealand model, where coalitions and minority governments are quite common, may dampen personalist appeals and populist rhetoric. Each of the many minority factions could attain representation in the Parliament, unpopular demagogues could be ousted within the normal operation of government, and there could be much greater incentives for cooperation. As we know, Parliamentary governments are hierarchical, not transactional. This is a key point: the various interests in Equator have proven they cannot transact with one another very well. While the NZ model may not be a perfect solution, it will least give more incentives to cooperate while allowing a government to be taken down without all the drama we see playing out year after year, President after President. Fixed-terms can offer stability under more civilized circumstances but are perhaps too rigid for this country as it tries to find its own way to democracy.