Cross death and other crossroads

Guillermo Lasso, the current president of Ecuador, has not had a minute of peace since he was sworn in in May 2021. Lasso, known for his success in the world of finance, pursued the Presidency of his country for 10 years until he finally gave up. prevailed in the second round of the general elections against the correísta Andrés Arauz.

Lasso was a staunch opponent of Rafael Correa; In his political career, he defended the free market economy and was reticent in the face of the so-called 21st century socialism, which advocates a strong participation of the State in the economy.

Before entering the Carondelet Palace, Lasso took his first false step by breaking his political alliance with Jaime Nebot’s Social Christian Party and thus was left with a parliamentary bench of 13 assembly members out of a total of 137 seats. With these indicators, it was foreseeable that the constitutional period of the Ecuadorian president was going to be more of a via crucis than a political process, and so it turned out.

The Ecuadorian government faced a worrying increase in the wave of citizen insecurity, constant social conflicts, the takeover of Quito by indigenous organizations that resulted in several deaths, and the first impeachment attempt that failed by a narrow margin of votes, in June 2022. .

The history of Latin America shows that rulers unable to reach minimum agreements to guarantee governability in their parliaments are doomed to failure, much more so if the Constitutions grant legislative powers the power to remove presidents, as occurs in Peru with the famous “moral incapacity to govern” and in Ecuador with the political trial for the dismissal of a president.

In both cases, the constitutional norm opens the door for parliamentary majorities, often illegitimate and spurious, to put governments in permanent check, a clear sign that politicians care more about power than democracy. And, paradoxically, it also grants presidents the power to dissolve Congress, in the case of Peru, and decree the “cross death”, in the case of Ecuador.

In short, in the name of the Constitution, parliaments remove presidents and presidents can dissolve congresses, a kind of true constitutional schizophrenia.

Guillermo Lasso decided to sacrifice his mandate before being dismissed in a dubious trial, he played his cards and has started a new electoral process in Ecuador. Legally, he has a chance to seek his re-election, but it is unlikely that he will run, knowing that he has become a president with very low popularity ratings.

In a maximum period of six months Ecuador will have a new government and, as the scenario is presented, a new turn to the left is foreseeable, among the followers of Rafael Correa or the strong indigenous leaderships; but, beyond the election, could it be that in this country, close to Bolivia due to Quechua history and tradition, minimum agreements can be reached to preserve democracy?

What lessons remain for Bolivia? That our constitutional architecture is more consistent, only the people can revoke the president’s mandate and there is no figure that gives the president the possibility of closing Parliament. With lights and shadows, that’s a point in favor.

And the most important lesson from the Ecuadorian experience is that democracy is not only votes or constitutional powers; It is, above all, dialogue with opponents to build agreements and become aware that with political crises, everyone loses, no one wins. Hopefully our politicians learn their lesson and don’t squander our democracy, which is so affected by polarization and intolerance.