Ecuador is located in South America. It gained its independence in 1830 from the colonial Spanish Empire. The country is 256,370 square kilometers nonetheless it has diverse species and it is among the seventeen megadiverse nations in the entire world. The country is of medium-income and close to 40% of the population live below the poverty line. The country fell under military rule between 1972 and 1979. In 1972, General Guillermo Rodriguez led a coup de tat that took over power from the government led by President Velasco Ibarra. His government was civilian and when it became unstable, the military intervened. The then-president was exiled to Argentina. The new president of the military regime remained in power until 1976 when another military coup took place and formed a new military government. Like in many other countries in Latin America and Asia, the military took over power from civilian governments when the institutions were rocked with problems. They did this to restore stability in the country through most of the military regimes often ended up doing more harm than good. In Ecuador, the military regime was short-lived because in 1979 power was returned to a democratically elected president after the country gained economic and social stability. However, the country still seeks to “realize the promise of the democratic transition of 1979” (Chernick). The paper seeks to discuss the principal actors in the conflict and the tactics they used in the conflict. In addition, the political transition and the formation of a truth commission, and finally if the transition was successful will be discussed.
Instability rocked Ecuador around the year 1960 during the reign of President Ponce. Velasco staged a vicious campaign against Ponce and was elected on the promise of supporting the poor urban masses “whom had recently migrated to Guayaquil… in search of decent jobs and a place to live” (Chernick). President Velasco put the economy of the country at risk when he declared hostilities against the main trade partners of Ecuador. This development led to a bad relationship with the USA as President Velasco increased in anti-United states sentiments. Soon Ecuador’s politics was polarized and massive violence erupted between the anticommunist right and leftists students. The deteriorating economy brought a split in the Velasquez coalition and the opposition criticized his government openly. In addition, the congress and the government had a bad relationship and the legislators it is alleged engaged in gun battles as bullet holes were seen in the Chamber. The government raised taxes to meet its demands and this sparked riots all over the country’s major cities. This led to a military coup and power was given to Arosemena a long-time opponent of President Velasco. He continued a relationship with Cuba and this made him unpopular because he was perceived as a communist for his insistence on a relationship with communist Cuba. Therefore, Arosemena lost his presidency through a military coup. The international community as well as the national community did support the coup because the country had become an important trade partner at the international level (Conaghan and Espinal 6). Both the reigns of Velasco and Arosemena did not restore Ecuador’s social and economic stability and thus the military regime that took over in 1972 called itself “nationalist and revolutionary” (Direct Military Rule). General Rodriguez took over and many hoped that he would return power to civilians soon. He did not lead a progressive military regime as many had anticipated. The regime he led was a hybrid and it reflected “a tenacious equilibrium among the widely divergent political tendencies within the Ecuadorian armed forces” (Direct Military Rule). Rodriquez wanted his regime to introduce structural changes that would unlock the development process in Ecuador.
The participants in the Ecuadorian conflict were the elite who had economic interests. The elite had different economic interests and came from two regions. The coastal region was dominated by the “agro-financial bourgeoisie of the port of Guayaquil” (Conaghan and Espinal 5). This group controlled cocoa export while on the mountainous region was the elite that owned large tracks of land that produced products for the internal market. The two elite groups fought over the control of the state so that they could protect their trade interests.
The military used the tactic of divide and rule to control Ecuador. It “combined its reformist anticommunism with more traditional hard-line variety” (Chernick). The military government sent the communist leadership who leaned on the left to jail. In addition, the main universities were reorganized to prevent students from participating in political activism. The military took this precaution, as university students had been involved in popular uprisings in the past. On the other, hand President Rodriguez tried several leaders including the former President with corruption charges. Many powerful men in the previous regimes such as drug traffickers also faced prosecution. Conversely, the military regime failed to cultivate civilian support. The lack of support from the civilian caused the military government to fail in its bid to bring about the agrarian reforms that it had promised. The reform agenda did not go well with the elite who made the efforts of the agriculture minister Futile. The traditional elites used frustration as a tactic to ensure that the military regime did not gain legitimacy from the local civilians. The elite was upset about the agrarian reform, as it would change the landholding policy in the country. However, the government managed to bring about developments in other areas such as the infrastructure. This led to the development o the Ecuadorian State Petroleum Corporation that later became a major part of the country’s oil exploitation. This development led Ecuador to an economic boom.
The regime used the oil policy as a tool to express its nationalism. The then Natural Resources Minster Gustavo Jarr Ampudia led Ecuador’s entry into the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). In addition, he led the country in renegotiating oil concessions and this led to an increase in the tax rate payable to the government by the foreign firms. This, however, did not go well with players in the oil industry because they felt that the oil was highly-priced. They cut down their oil exports and this harmed the government as it lost millions of dollars and could not continue to justify the military takeover on the oil policy. The economy began to deteriorate as inflation soared and caused problems to the middle class.
To curb the economic problems the government declared a 60 percent duty for imported luxury items. The chamber of commerce condemned the move and this led to increased unpopularity of the regime. This led to an attempted coup that failed and left twenty-two people dead. Another coup followed and this time it was successful and Rodriguez lost power.
The political transition in Ecuador was long and took place slowly. It began in 1976 after the military coup that replaced Rodriguez took over. The military wanted to return the rule to civilians as the bloody coup in 1975 showed the divisions in the military. It hoped that a civilian government would help the military to take time and heal the rift or make it less conspicuous to the public (Carothers 6). “The professional costs of long-term military rule” forced the government to initiate a transition (Fitch 29). Thus, the military government announced its intent to return the government to civilians (Isaacs 224- 7). The process began while the regime was still strong and not “from a position of weakness” (Mainwaring 21). The plan was to hold presidential elections in 1978. The military government kicked off the process by seeking a new constitution. Two commissions were appointed to prepare “charters and electoral laws” (Fitch 67). The proposed draft constitutions would then go to a public referendum. This political transition process was delayed and it was not until three years and eight months that a civilian president was inaugurated. The delay resulted from the “on going disagreement within the military high command and repeated maneuverings by the military government to manipulate the electoral process, thereby controlling its outcome” (Kunstaetter 440).
On January 15, 1978, a constitutional referendum took place. A majority of the voters favored the proposed new draft constitution because they felt it was more progress. The reforms suggested in the draft were the recognition of the state in the economic and social development of the country, unicameral legislature, legalization of self-managed workers in the economy, and lastly but not least “electoral suffrage for the illiterates” (Fitch 57). After the referendum, five presidential candidates took part in the presidential elections. The electoral law stated that a run-off would be held between the top two runners in case no candidate garnered a majority vote. In this election, no candidate managed to gain a majority vote and a run-off was in the offing. Nine months later the run-off took place but there were serious doubts about the transition that was taking place as it had been planned (Lucero 58-65). Problems marred vote-counting however, the challenges were overcome and Roldos Jaime won the election. The military government reluctantly allowed Roldos to assume office. This was not easy as the military received pressure from the then US President Carter (Isaacs 236). The military was still powerful and it cut a deal with the incoming president not to investigate the behavior of the military during its reign. The military also named the board directors of the main state corporations as well as the minister of defense. Therefore, the military capped the authority of the incoming president and he could not fulfill his campaign slogan “we will not forgive, we will not forget” (Direct Military Rule). The handover of power from the military to Roldos after a decade of authoritarianism saw Ecuador return to civilian rule.
Roldos took over a country that had undergone major changes during the military reign. The industrial development in the military reign had progressed considerably. The economy has expanded and increased to “a full 500 percent” (Direct Military Rule). The country’s oil market was doing well as Ecuador had entered into the Andean Common Market. This increased its market for its homegrown products. On the other hand, the petroleum revenues widened the gap between the rich and the poor. This heightened the problem of unequal distribution of resources in the country. Despite the increased employment, rate “above 10 percent annually throughout the late 1970s the income inequality among the middle class persisted” (Kunstaetter 438). The expectations of the people about the development of social and economic structures remained unfulfilled. The typical civilian politics did not change, “regionalism, and personalism, reflected in the proliferation of political parties” (Kunstaetter 436). The political rivalry between the legislature and the government continued during Roldos’s tenure. These political traditions fueled differences between the President and Bucaram. Bucaram had been blocked for running for the presidency in the previous two elections and he was keen to destroy the reformist agenda of the president. Sadly, president Roldos died in a plane crash together with his wife. Many saw the accident as an assassination and blamed the US government. His successor was the then vice president Oswaldo Hurtado. He was “threatened by a series of political and economic crises (Kunstaetter 432). The petroleum boom faded quickly in the early 1980s and the country faced a major economic crisis. This was an adequate reason for military intervention but he managed to hold on to power and today he remained among the few respected Ecuadorian politicians.
The government of Ecuador formed a truth commission in the year 2007. The commission was to investigate human rights abuses in the country that took place in the early 1980s. Since the military took over in 1972, several allegations about human abuses have been reported and many seek justice by “calls for a full investigation” (Hayner 68). In 1996, a truth commission was set up to quell the demands. The commission was formed to help “halt impunity” (Hibbitts). It was to look into 327 cases of missing persons. These people had disappeared without a trace and the abuses committed during the reign of the harsh military regime. The government formed the commission to follow the footsteps of countries such as Peru, Guatemala, and Chile, which established truth commissions to look into human rights abuses. The human rights abuses were committed in a bid to quell “minor leftist uprisings” (Hayner 70). The failure of prosecution of the perpetrators of human abuses in the various governments has led to impunity and people in power have abused their offices to cover up corruption and killings of innocent Ecuadorians.
The commission has not been successful in its work due to a lack adequate of funding from the government. The commission cannot do its mandate because a lack of funds has crippled its operations. It faces a similar fate as an earlier commission established in 2007 that ” lasted just a couple of months before fading away because of lack of funding” (Hayner 69). The lack of commitment from political leaders has led to continued impunity in countries that were ruled by harsh regimes. The leaders discourage the formation as well as the success of the truth commissions because they would not like to be investigated once they leave office. On the other hand, the military regimes also tried to protect themselves through the creation of amnesty against political crimes like in the case of Brazil. Similarly, in Ecuador, the military rulers ensured that the behavior of the army would not be investigated before they handed power to the civilian ruler Roldos. The amnesty law, therefore, protects the perpetrators of crimes against humanity and the governments often fail to initiate the process to change the law to overturn amnesty laws against political crimes. Thus, impunity goes on unchecked, as leaders know that they have the protection of the constitution for any wrongs they might commit against humanity while in office. On the other hand, it is important to note that the democratization process in Ecuador is ongoing and though there are challenges the civilian rules have been the longest without military intervention. Resource distribution remains unequal and a big part of the population lives below the poverty line (De la Torre 22-4)
Many countries are still grappling with the issue of democratization and political liberalization. Most of the countries in the world have managed to secure political transitions and the countries have achieved relative success with their democratization objectives. In the recent past, the democratization process has occurred through political transitions from military or authoritarian regimes. The process begins within the ruling regime when a few ruling elites become dissatisfied with the method applied in ruling the country by an authoritarian regime because they “find a liberal regime to be the most appropriate and useful manner of organizing political life” (Chalmers and Robinson 35). The transitions are deemed necessary to gain legitimacy and both at the domestic and international level. In the past military regimes enjoyed popular support but not anymore. The regimes are associated with atrocities against humanity and cover-up of the same.
Authoritarian regimes suppress the human rights of the people. Therefore, they should be fought. On the other hand, to curb the need for military interventions elected governments should work towards the preservation of the constitution and protecting it against selfish amendments by leaders who do so to advance their political ambitions as it happened in Ecuador. Democracy should be guarded at all costs because the cost of military or authoritarian regimes is costly. A democratic society is desirable because it allows people to enjoy fundamental human rights and thus they can live in peace and pursue their goals in life. Countries of the world should unite against military coups because they are not helpful countries as most of the military regimes are harsh and cruel to the people.
Works Cited
Carothers, Thomas. The End of the Transition Paradigm. Journal of Democracy, 13. 1 (2002): 5-21.
Chlamers, Douglas and Robison, Craig. “ Why Power Contenders Chose Liberalization.” International Studies quarterly 26 (1982): 33-36.
Chernick, Marc. Government and Politics: Ecuador and Columbia. 2004. Web.
Conaghan, Catherine M, and Espinal, Rosario. “Unlikely Transitions to Uncertain Regimes? Democracy without Compromise in the Dominican Republic and Ecuador.” Journal of Latin American Studies, 22. 3 (1990): 553-574.
De la Torre, Carlos. Populism and Democracy: Political Discourses and Cultures in Contemporary Ecuador. Latin American Perspectives, 24. 3 (1997): 12-24. Direct Military Rule. Web.
Hayner, Priscilla. Unspeakable Truths: Confronting State Terror and Atrocity. New York: Routelage, 2001. Print
Isaacs, Anita. “Problems of democratic consolidation in Ecuador.” Bulletin of Latin America Research, 10. 2 (1991): 221-238.
Lucero, Jose Antonio. “High anxiety in the Andes: Crisis and contention in Ecuador.” Journal of Democracy, 12. 2 (2001): 59-73.
Hibitts, Bernard. Ecuador Launches Truth Commission to Investigate Past Rights Abuses. Jurist legal News and Research. 2007. Web.
Fitch, Samuel J . The Armed Forces and Democracy In Latin America. New York: JHU Press, 1998.
Kunstaetter, Daisy. Ecuador and Galapags. New York: Foot Travel Guides, 2003.
Mainwarning, Scot. Transitions to Democracy and Democratic Consolidation: Theoretical and Comparative Issues. 1989.