The defeat of progressivism in Ecuador | Opinion

After a defeat, there is always a great interest in finding the culprits. However, more than first and last names what really helps is to understand the many facets of a political process as complex as that of Ecuador. Here are some variables to understand why Andrés Arauz lost against Guillermo Lasso (Photo) 47.5 versus 52.5 percent.

1. As I wrote at the end of the first round, the mobilizations of October 2019 (against the IMF measures of the government of Lenin Moreno) continue to leave an indelible mark on the Ecuadorian political scene: they have reorganized it with obvious electoral consequences. The indigenous movement is constituted as a subject, relevant in politics and competitive in electoral matters. Beyond the heterogeneity within it and the major differences existing within the leadership, it is today the second strength of the Assembly and of its presidential candidate, Yaku Pérez, He was at 30,000 votes before going to the second round. This also had its correlation in the ballot: they called the blank / null vote and they succeeded (almost 2 million blank / null votes). Everything that happens in Ecuador from now on, yes or yes, will have to take into account what is happening within the indigenous movement and, of course, what could happen in the next elections in early May. As President of Conaie (Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities). It won’t be the same if Yaku Pérez wins as if he does Leonidas Iza. If the second wins, then Lasso will have fierce opposition in the native sector.

2. The campaign mattered. And the presidential debate too. The “Andrés, don’t lie anymore”, which Lasso let Arauz escape in the middle of the debate, was effective in terms of a sympathetic and catchy “meme drop”, which behind its apparent frivolity, hid a successful strategy: cut the credibility of ‘Arauz. In addition to this axis, Lasso has managed to show himself as what he is not. He barely spent time on his proposals. He avoided any possibility of dispersion in his messages (it was repetitive until boring). He focused all his attention on “fishing” the majority of the electorate in Xavier Hervas (who had obtained 16 points in the first round) and part of what the other candidates had achieved (13 points). And he succeeds. To this, we must add that he added a greater dose of epic to his campaign, based on the “return”. This contrasted with Arauz’s campaign, which was flatter and more confident, and which had two flaws: on the one hand, he believed the finish line had been reached. after having overcome all the obstacles to register the application (because everything has suffered until then) instead of having considered it as a starting point; and, on the other hand, the unexpected result of the first round crippled them for over a month. A lost time that is never easy to recover in such a competitive election campaign.

3. A front is only a real front when it is made up of different parts; you cannot be a couple with yourself. Correísmo tried, but at no time was he able to materialize it. From the start, this idea, the need to expand, was not entirely genuine and sincere. Lenin’s betrayal hangover hindered the achievement of this goal. Mistrust is always contrary to the desire to add new players. Correísmo ended up being correísmo in its essence and that was enough to be the first force in the first round, but not to win in the second.

4. Relay is an unpaid game. Succession is not a trivial matter, neither in life nor in politics. This is a question which, within Latin American progressivism of the 21st century, still has little sample from which to draw solid conclusions. Each process was done in its own way: Cristina with Alberto, Evo with Arce, and in the Ecuadorian case we were in the second round, Correa with Arauz. It is a stage full of complexities because it is not free from dialectics, pseudo-Gramscian, because a consolidated leadership coexists with another in the birth phase. If it takes place at election time, then everything becomes even more difficult. And it doesn’t always work. This time, in the light of the vows, it was not as righteous as it could have been.

5. The double edge of law. There was. Correísmo suffered it to the extreme. Correa was unable to stand as a candidate and many court cases have been opened with and without conviction, but all without merit. Moreover, a good part of its leaders are exiled, almost all of them prosecuted. All of this happened, although not everything can be explained on the basis of this process. In the event of a problem (in this case, the law) serves as a monopoly argument, then you run the risk of oversizing it, believing that anything, absolutely anything, can be interpreted from that point of view. the law, I insist, there is, yes, this is a question of great importance, but considered monothematically, it can atrophy the ability to notice the polyhedron of a phenomenon. (And by the way, a detail: citizens, in general, do not eat breakfast lawfare.)

6. The Lenin Effect. Paradoxical as it may sound, a notable percentage of citizens still blame Correa for the responsibility of the nefarious Moreno government. It is paradoxical because President Moreno co-governed with Lasso and it persecuted without ceasing to the correísmo. However, a majority of voters assumed that Lenin was, in part, the “continuity” of Correísmo.

7. Do we know the poor class? The term middle class can be useful in a geographic enclave and a historical moment. But it doesn’t always work. If it is used excessively, it is very likely that a big mistake will be made: not to agree with the aspirational logic of majorities, with their common senses, with their language and their dominant codes. Some of these events probably happened in Ecuador: Arauz was concerned about this population but, instead, did not link to them as if to allow him to win the election.

Many other variables are needed to understand why Ecuadorian citizens chose to elect a banker for the presidency (media, asymmetry of advertising spending, etc.). Everything will be decisive in what will happen from now on. Lasso won the election in this second round, but his future will be largely conditioned by the fact that he ends up suffering from “Macri’s disease”, that is to say that his political strength is proportional to the votes obtained. in the second round. Confusing your own votes with borrowed votes leads to overestimating yourself, making you want to rule as if you have a majority. And no. Lasso is the fifth force by number of seats in the Legislative Assembly, and almost 9 out of 10 did not vote for him in the first round (he only got 15% of the total vote), probably because he does not want a normal neoliberal government plan.

* CELAG