Ecuador's new constitution

In good faith

Though not as radical as similar reforms in Venezuela and Bolivia, Ecuador’s newly approved charter could still spell trouble

See article

Readers' comments


Alexander Leonidas Pusternak

Whoever wrote this bias political article knows nothing about the internal struggle of us--the Ecuadorian Citizen.

It is true that the new constitution has a lot of misleading and ambigious clauses, but that is how constitution are meat to highlite. Take for instance the US constitution; it is the shortes constitution ever to exist in teh world and its articles and the bill of rights is full of abiguity and contradictions that if it had not been for the Supreme Court and the Judicial Review that Justice Marshall "invented" and therefore established in Marbury v. Madision rullilng, the US would had vener become what it is today. Its legal system and the power ("check and balance") of the Supreme Court to say what the law would never exist.
The US, the people, the writers, and all those who preach the unhealthy capitalistic doctrine to the rest of the world, when criticizing new constitution, often forget the history and the tradition that a legal system needs to achieve in order to be a respectable system.
What the new government system in Ecuador needs is time. The new constitution looks promising. It only needs time and the people willing to respect and honor this new cosntitution.
What Ecuador and its people need to understand is tha this new "Rawlsonian" constitution is there to protect their basic and most profound rights and liberties. It is giving women the freedom of their persons; it is creatign a secular state; it is respecting religious groups to preach their own doctrines; it is laying an outline for the basic capabilities and and goods that everyone is entittled to have it by nature or God.
Those who are afraid of their property being taken away, should remember they way they gained acceess to that property. Everything rests on simple principles.
It is a total lie that this new constitution has mommunits ideologies at the bottom--In fact, it is one of the most liberal constitution ever crafted.
The only hope that we should have as citizens is the hope that the Judges of the New Constitutional Court would interpret the constitution in a progressive form. Otherwise, legislation must take effect.

Viva La Pachamama!


Sefes this magazine has spoken against Uribe doing so. A little jab at the end is the most negative thing in this article.

Lord F.Y.

The difference between Chavez, Morales, Lula , Ortega ?
They are all disciple of baphomet of the Caribbean..
El Comandante dies , living behind the disciple.
Get it?


I think there is some bias in this article, since it mentioned that Correa is following other Presidents lead in the region when looking for a longer term in power, but it's never mentioned Uribe as one of those Presidents, even though he made the same changes, and he is looking to stay for another period, meaning 12 years. Why is this difference? It is disappointing how the media has been looking Correa's presidency, and it has judged and sentenced his work. News without deep investigation or analysis.In this case The Economist shouldn't be called "a political, literary and general newspaper" just another political paper.


I believe that to comment on a issue such as the ecuadorian democracy, one needs to have lived in the country for more than a couple of years and feel what most of ecuador's people feel about corruption, social inequality and lack of leadership in the country. Correa to some extent predicted the downfall of US financial world, when he discribed the downfalls of a un-regulated economy like america. Well, if he is not doing things right like some people say, I wonder, what the USA government was thinking when they decided to leave the market to be its servant and its master and you can see it now with the American crisis and the misery that USA has managed to globalise.

Proactive Observer

It is good news to hear some objective approach to the current ecuadorian situation, even though there is an international campaign against it. Thank you Economist.

On the other hand, there are always two sides of the story: positive and negative. Being in the middle of such a crossing-point in Ecuador means quite a lot of supporters, as well as contenders. So I am not surprised for the comments that this article has brought and is going to keep bringing, I am sure, if I do know well many well educated and prepared and fully bilingual ecuadorians.

Under the poor rule of the law and lack of capability, it is very difficult in a weak state, like Ecuador, to take an orthodox approach in order to encourage proper reform. Looking from outside it seems that it never changes, but these are other days and Correa, like it or not, is doing well about bringing those necessary changes, mainly until now, on the political side.

Where is the country going? Still do not know, and of course, there have been several mistakes on the economic and financial side that show a government that has been misleaded by a franctic political behaviour. But this has to be understood under the scope of what has been the background and how much oppositions was there in the past, against any change, just keeping the "statu quo" against the common benefit and solidarity.

Now that political campaign is over (for now), it is really time for the Correa government to take the proper steps towards a new solidarity society and a general common welfare, but taking a more transparent and pragmatic approach than the one it has been taken lately; it is a challenge these days to built a less dogmatic economic and financial team, more trained and prepared in order to face the complexity that this "change" requires, as well as the current international messy times that soon future brings to poorly prepared states like Ecuador.

I am sure that somebody with the guts and the inteligence to have succeeded until now in such a complex scenario, might be able to take the right road to the success of a real political, social and economic reform.

He has a chance that nobody has had in the past; and if he does not suceed, I am sure that he is going to be, again, another story like the last three deposed Presidents or worst, like former first liberal ecuadorian President Alfaro, who was killed, early in the 20th century, by the same people who took him into power because they felt betrayed. Lets hope that he is going to rule with his mind, instead of his stomach, as he has been known until now.


After conducting rigorous research on water provision in Quito this summer, I was under the impression that the new constitution prohibits privatization of public services. This would apply retroactively, which is a form of nationalization, no?


I am glad that you recognize the differences between what Correa is doing and what Chavez and Morales are up to. The key to keeping Correa from the excesses of Chavez and Morales is two-fold: (1) Keep a sharp eye on the government's actions, to speak out loudly against abuses and (2) Avoid marginalizing his government to allow it to navigate the balance between much-needed reform and equally-needed domestic and foreign investment.

In particular, the US must adopt policies that respect the country's legitimate demands while supporting much-needed reforms, cooperating to achieve mutually-beneficial goals such as improving bi-lateral trade, curbing money-laundering activities and promoting economic growth that reduces income inequality.

Because to achieve desirable Ecuador-US cooperation, it becomes essential to remove the "US-as-evil-empire" excuse that is often used to whip up support for radical policies. Therefore, I believe that the election of Obama/Biden and their "work-with-allies" and "regain-international-respect" foreign policy becomes -- interestingly enough -- a critical necessity to increase the likelyhood that the Correa government will achieve goals that can be aplauded by all.


Having lived in Ecuador for a couple of years, and having been there for the election of Correa, this article hits a lot of points with accuracy. You have a country here that has kicked out three or four presidents in the last ten years before they could finish their term, and desperate for a leader that will hear their voice. Correa is trying to fight corruption, but doing it the wrong way. By reducing checks and balances, and comitting windfall profits on the countrys commodity exports and not saving any of it, is a recipe for economic and political diasaster. I don't know what school of economics Pres. Correa attended, but he may need to go back. Power breed corruption, and the Economist has called it as it is. Correa has allyed himself to a certain extent with Evo Morales and Hugo Chavez, who are symbols of control and manipulation to their own advantage. Good job economist!


dcmenina: I don't get it. Your second paragraph sounds as though you're complaining that two side are presented. Ecuador's situation is neither exactly the same as nor completely different from Venezuela's, so why not report as much?Also, that "barely 30% of country" is more than a third of the voters, if you do the subtraction. Granted, it's a substantial victory for Correa, but a third of the populace is no tiny minority to be completely ignored. (Nevermind that a proper democracy should protect even a tiny minority anyway.)


Correa is as much a dictator as Chavez, Morales, Ortega and others.The mere fact that he has been elected democratically, does not affect his ultimate goal. Power & more Power for as long as possible.The Ecuadorian people have forever gone thru a long succession of corrupt governments {since independence from Spain}.Their dreams have been shattered for many years.They continue to wait for a "SAVIOR" and Correa is not the man.They will soon find out that this MBA economist {title only} will cause havoc once again to their dreams.


That picture caption is WAY over the top for a supposedly serious publication.

also, the whole piece is schizophrenic - how is it that in the same paragraph, you note that Correa won 64% of the vote and then a few sentences later talk about how "many" (unidentified) Ecuadoreans "wory" about the creation of a "Venezuela-style autocracy." Ummm...would that "many" be some of the barely 30% who voted no?

Then there is the whole Venezuela-comparathon closely followed by a discussion of the many ways that Ecuador is "less radical" , how he didn't kick out the U.S. Ambassador unlike Venezuela, how he hasn't nationalized key sectors like telecom or threatened ot seize property.

Seriously folks, I know the Economist has a POV, but sloppy reporting is sloppy reporting.


Latest blog posts - All times are GMT
Gun laws: Prayers and pistols
Democracy in America July 11th, 17:43
Daily chart: Justice on trial
Graphic detail July 11th, 13:40
Technology and fashion: Storming the maisons
Schumpeter July 11th, 10:05
Financial literacy: Back to basics
Free exchange July 11th, 10:01


Products and events



