having approved the new Constitution, Correa headed for an easy win as president and enjoying approval ratings in the 60% to 70% range, I don't think "volatile" is the right word--unless, of course, Rotters and the Associated Pukes are privy to CIA/Exxon Mobil plots to render Ecuador "volatile" with fascist riots, destabilization and coup attempts (as was tried in Bolivia, under the Bushwhacks, only this last September).
Does democracy = volatile? "Volatile" based on what evidence? Ecuadorans are more united than they have ever been. They are happy with Correa's government. Ecuador was
once a "volatile" country, prior to Correa. It no longer can be described that way. And the only reason that his 60% to 70% approval ratings are apparently not going to result in an overwhelming landslide--but rather just a winning plurality (probably in the 50%+ range)--is the field of seven candidates, splitting voters off from Correa to both the right and the left, and is primarily because of
pressure from the left--and from leftist candidate Martha Roldos (polls give her 10%--that is Correa's missing landslide)--which wants yet more democratic transformation in Ecuador.
The left is running a candidate much the way the antiwar left here ran candidates for president in the primaries, during the Vietnam War, and, recently, during the Iraq War, to "send a message" to the powers-that-be. In 1968, for instance, Eugene McCarthy ran against LBJ on the Vietnam War issue, and actually lost the New Hampshire primary, but made such a good showing that LBJ dropped out of the race, which made way for Bobby Kennedy to run for president, also on an anti-Vietnam War platform. McCarthy never expected to be elected president--and probably didn't even want to be president--but served the function of "sending a message." Correa has critics on the Left--environmentalists, indigenous tribes--who think he has not gone far enough to correct certain problems. For instance, the indigenous tribes now have the right to argue against bad mining and other corporate crimes on their tribal lands, but do not have a veto over it. They want a veto. Correa has resisted this, because mining is his economic fallback, for funding social programs, given fallen oil prices. He would no doubt like to do more to protect the environment (he agreed to Mother Nature--"Pachamama," in the indigenous language--being enshrined in the Constitution has having the independent right to exist and to function properly), but feels constrained by economic requirements. Thus, Roldos is able to shave off 10% of his votes from the left. The remaining 30%-40% is the typical rightwing minority that we see in South America, and here, which only wins elections by stealing them, one way or another, often with U.S. government funding and support. The minority rightwing is split between two candidates (who are equally odious).
Gaia News has a somewhat more accurate description of the context in Ecuador, for its lede, as follows:
"GUAYAQUIL, Ecuador — President Rafael Correa’s radical transformation of once unstable Ecuador, including a new constitution that would grant him greater powers, is expected to propel the leftist economist to easy re-election on Sunday."http://blog.taragana.com/n/easy-re-election-expected-sunday-for-ecuadors-feisty-leftist-leader-36801/ 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
