The people of Ecuador were facing chronic turnover in government leading to loss of morale, stability, and hope. That had experienced years of dissatisfaction in government. Ecuador needed a new leader. Enter Rafael Correa.
When Rafael Correa was elected to the presidency in 2007, he brought with him a hope for a brighter future for the country of Ecuador. He proposed a new constitution in 2008 to combat the long-standing corruption in Ecuador’s National Congress. However, Correa’s constitution was far from a heroic document. The 2008 constitution signals the beginning of Correa’s journey of deepening the erosion of democracy in Ecuador through legal measures.
At the surface level, this new constitution brought with it a lot of positives. It incorporated a variety of Correa’s leftish ideas such as social security benefits for nonworkers, acceptance of same-sex marriage, free education through college, and other policies. This all seemed positive for the country and the people. Correa was bringing fresh new legislation. His new prepositions seemed to help prove the lives of his citizens, as they looked on the surface.
Moreover, the constitution was enacted legally. It was adopted by a special Constituent Assembly in July and voted for by more than 60% of Ecuadoran voters when brought to a referendum in September of 2008. The 2008 constitution had the support of the people. The will of the people was adhered to. Correa looked to be expanding democracy for the voters of Ecuador.
However, Correa’s 2008 constitution gave broader powers to the president and allowed the president to serve two consecutive four-year terms. The government was given new and increased control. Ultimately, Correa ended up proposing amendments only three years later.
These amendments, while voted on and approved by the voters, had sweeping reforms to the judicial system, limiting due process, limiting the free press, and more. Therefore, this 2008 constitution opened the door to allow Correa to continue to make structural and institutional changes to Ecuador. The 2008 constitution which seemed so great on the outside was adjusted and added onto.
Given the legality of Correa’s reforms, it seems like this constitution and approved amendments are bringing Ecuador back to a place of democracy. However, the implications and adjustments to the status quo move Ecuador ever further from a place of democracy.
Correa is employing stealth authoritarianism. This is an idea introduced by Ozan O. Varol. Essentially, democratic erosion is occurring, however, it is not obvious on the surface level. For an Ecuadoran who is struggling and hoping for a brighter future, they would see Correa and his reforms as a positive. Given that he is achieving these changes legally, through referendum, and allowing the people to have votes, how can this be a negative?
That’s the sneaky aspect of stealth authoritarianism. Often time this type of erosion is done through legal measures. However, when taking a deep dive, Correa is altering the institutions, such as the Ecuador National Congress, to create a mendable government that he can alter to his benefit. For example, he is limiting some of the barriers to his power such as the judiciary and the private sector of the press. People weren’t free to expose or belittle Correa’s government.
Moreover, looking at the mechanism of democratic erosion, Correa is checking many of the boxes. He is making his changes through constitutional amendments, eliminating aspects of checks and balances, employing some degree of executive aggrandizement, and contracting the public sphere. While this is happening under the nose of the Ecuadoran people, they don’t notice or realize the effects it is having on their democracy.
This 2008 constitution began the regime of Correa’s reforms and democratic takeover in Ecuador. The risks and repercussions of stealth authoritarianism can be seen now when looking back on this time. The concern with stealth authoritarianism is the way it can be disguised as helping in many cases. It was seen that these changes are being made to improve and help the people of Ecuador. Moreover, the initial document contained changes such as socially positive aspects that would incentivize the people to vote in favor of changes. However, later on, Correa passes reforms that are for his own benefit.
Correa took advantage of a country that was struggling and hopeless. His constitution not only didn’t help the situation in Ecuador but through allowing various other reforms to be passed, made the situation in this country worse. This 2008 constitution was the start of Correa’s continuous eroding of Ecuadoran democracy.
Constitutions are seen as cornerstones of democracy. The United States Constitution is a sacred document used to uphold American democracy and a central part of our government. Unlike this important manuscript, the constitution proposed by Correa in 2008 did little to promote the democracy of its country. Correa’s constitution was simply an illusion of an unfulfilled promise of democracy he made to the people of Ecuador.
This is an interesting argument—great work!
While I agree that Correa effectively consolidated power through the 2008 constitution and subsequent reforms, I’m not entirely convinced, based on the evidence presented, that this constitutes stealthy or deceptive authoritarianism. If 60% of voters approved these changes, where exactly does the deception lie? Also, I find myself wondering: if “the people” choose to change the democratic process to create a stronger executive, wouldn’t that still reflect the will of the people? What are some other examples that more clearly show his attempts to consolidate power?
Regardless, I think it’s worth considering whether Correa’s left-wing ideology played a role in gaining trust and possibly obscuring his intentions—both for the people of Ecuador and the international community. We often focus on right-wing leaders, like Donald Trump in the U.S. or Viktor Orbán in Hungary, as championing efforts to erode democracy. And so I think is worth noting how this partisan identity allowed him to gain trust and mislead many people.
You did a great job of evaluating Correa’s 2008 constitution and how though it appears to further Correa’s “leftist ideas” to protect parts of the population, it allowed him to make institutional changes to his benefit. I’m interested in hearing about some more specific examples of how citizens viewed Correa’s changes. Even if citizens didn’t realize the impact the changes were having on democracy, I wonder if they were at all wary of his increased control of the government. And how did these shifts concretely manifest in the Ecuadorian population? Did any of his changes directly restrict the freedoms of citizens, and was there any pushback about this? Also, you mention that 60% of voters in Ecuador voted for the 2008 constitution. Did this amount of support change in subsequent years of his leadership? I’m also curious about how this support differed from previous administrations, since you also discussed the dissatisfaction in former governments. You said that Correa’s leadership provided citizens with hope for changes to improve their quality of life. I wonder if Correa’s tightened control of the government detracted from his ability to provide reforms for people in Ecuador.
Overall good overview of this interesting shift in Ecuador’s leadership, and how it brought up concerns for democratic erosion.