25th January 2000
By Gerard Coffey
The week of the 17th of January begins slowly. There is a sense of expectancy, but the signs are contradictory and it is hard to define the mood. The strikes by bus and taxi drivers are petering out: an agreement has apparently been reached with the government. The public school teachers are still out, but no one pays a much attention, perhaps because it’s such a common occurrence. Some roads are blocked, but there is little evidence of the indigenous uprising called for later in the week. The government apparently senses victory, and presidential spokespeople seem relatively relaxed.
The confidence does not last. As the week progresses, the situation begins to change. The Ágora of the Casa de la Cultura Ecuatoriana, a huge barn of an auditorium with a capacity of some 5,000, has been chosen as the venue for the native groups that we hear are on their way to the capital. And as Monday wears on people do begin to trickle in and the numbers inside the building, although small, grow steadily throughout the day. Stories circulate about others being stopped on their way by the military, taken off buses or trucks or whatever form of transport they try to use. The tactic is not new, and not particularly successful: the larger groups simply splinter and take other routes.
In the evening, the new arrivals are camped outside, exhausted after their long journey, sleeping in tents in Parque El Arbolito, or wherever they can find a space: under the building’s exterior colonnade, on the ground, under the stars. Long lines of people wait uncomplainingly to be fed from huge cauldrons that serve dozens at a single sitting. Inside, speeches reverberate in the brittle air of the half empty concrete shell, tirade after tirade launched against the government and its policies. Cheers and chants rise up sporadically: Viva la Patria, Viva el Ecuador, Abajo Mahuad, abajo la dolarización!
There’s little food and even less medicine for the people who begin to arrive the following day. Many women have swollen feet after walking with their children from communities located hundreds of kilometres to the North and South of the Capital. Others arrive complaining of stomach problems from drinking tainted water, their children suffering from exposure to sun, cold and rain. Everyone is hungry. But, perhaps surprisingly, despite the difficulties, they keep coming, and by the end of the second day a couple of thousand native people in traditional dress are lodged inside the hall.
The marchers continue to trickle in throughout the night, and by dawn on Wednesday the numbers have swollen, perhaps doubled. The speeches and chants are louder and more frequent, reinforced now by other groups that begin to link up: unions, students, clients of failed banks, retired soldiers. In the afternoon, a clearer picture begins to emerge. The leaders of the ‘People’s Parliament’ (I am officially an adjunct to the so called ‘communications team’ which has no real structure and does very little) will meet with the Military Joint Command. The Military will maintain order, they report later, but are open to dialogue. Later that afternoon the association of retired police officers and the association of retired infantrymen promise their support. A major change seems to have taken place, the resignation of previous days has given way to expectation, and barring some sort of appeasement from the government side, an upheaval now seems inevitable, probably imminent.
As Thursday morning breaks, the numbers have grown further. The huge hall is now full of indigenous people from all the mountain provinces: it is a mass of brightly coloured clothes, banners, music, conversation and announcements about the progress of the movement. It is no longer possible to call it anything else.
At midday the mass leaves the Ágora and marches out onto the streets. Intersections are blocked and traffic diverted for hours while the protestors sit in the road and sing the national anthem. Surprisingly perhaps, the police maintain a respectable distance. No tear gas is fired and no injuries are reported. There is to be a press conference at 3 o’clock, where the major speaker will be Monsignor Lunar Tobar of Cuenca, country’s third most important city located some 12 hours to the south. The nominal President of the ‘People’s Parliament’, the popular Lunar Tobar has been roundly criticised by the church’s eminently conservative hierarchy for siding actively with the indigenous people and the so called social movements.
But the event never takes place, and the main body of the 8,000 or more people gathered outside the Agora now begins to move up the hill towards the national Congress, taking up positions to block all access to the building. The protestors, in particular the women from the Province of Cotopaxi with their traditional hats and skirts, are determined that no one who enters will leave, and that anyone looking vaguely like a Congressman or an advisor will not be treated kindly. Some are able to evade the throng, others are not so lucky. A number of men sporting suites, and unknown to the crowd, are taken in hand. Most take it seriously and offer little resistance. They are lined up against the wall and verbally harassed. Some are cleansed by a shaman who bathes them in the smoke of traditional herbs.
One man, who doesn’t seem overly keen on the idea, is hauled by his tie over to the main body of protesters and verbally harassed. The head of the Political Committee of the People’s Parliament also falls victim to the general desire to humiliate parliamentarians. He generally wears a suit and tie, unfortunately marking him as the enemy. He is surrounded and harangued. Unrecognised by a group of fierce looking indigenous women, he is about to be dragged off and ‘cleansed‘. He shouts to me, begging to be saved. I do him the favour.
At about half past seven in the evening, the crowd seems relaxed: chatting, eating whatever is at hand, moving from one spot to another in small groups, watching to make sure that no one can leave the Congress building. The atmosphere is quiet, there is little activity and it appears that everyone is settling in for an all-night vigil. I don’t know what the strategy is, and from all appearances this is to be a thing of days. I try to leave, there doesn’t seem to be much sense in staying overnight, or maybe I’m just too soft, but whatever my reasons the guardians of the lines, the same indigenous women from the south, are not keen to let me pass. Gringos are not welcome they tell me. Fortunately I have my credential from the ‘People’s Parliament’, and with a little discussion, and shouts of “we don’t want dollars” I’m accepted as an ally and allowed to pass without incident.
It’s the night of the 20th, the night of the lunar eclipse, the red eclipse. In a café down the hill from the Congress building we drink till about ten and then go home to rest and prepare for the next day’s events. Later that evening the television news programmes show images of small scale skirmishes around the Congress building; groups of indigenous people are repelled by tear gas and a strong military presence. But it doesn’t appear to be serious.
Much to our surprise the cordon is breached in the early morning, and the multitude enters the Congress with the help of a group of mid ranking military officers. I enter with the crowd and stand high up in the balcony listening as Colonel Lucio Guttierez, the apparent leader of the military faction, makes a speech of patriotism, honesty and respect, while the crowd shouts, cheers, and sings the national anthem. There is a lot of confusion, and the thousands crammed into the legislative building all seem to be shouting at once: ‘the government of the corruptos and the bankers has fallen’, ‘the people control the country’. It is hardly that simple. The President of the country’s leading indigenous organisation CONAIE, the Amazonian Antonio Vargas, is not popular with all factions and there is a sense that the occupation of congress does not have the support of some established leaders from the Mountain provinces. There is also the small matter of the rest of the armed forces and the government itself led by President Mahuad, although no one seems to doubt that the majority of the country supports the uprising. Whatever the case may be, there is an overwhelming sense that there is no turning back.
The atmosphere is hard to describe. Most of us in the building have this strange feeling, this intermingling of exultancy, suspense and anxiety, of hoping that things work out, that we do rather than die. But no one knows for certain. So we busy ourselves with the ‘People’s Parliament’, which now installed emits its first resolutions. In a frenzy of voting legislation is passed: to prosecute fugitive bankers, unfreeze funds, cancel the state of emergency imposed by Mahuad, depose the President and cancel the dollarisation of the economy; the Sucre is declared to be once again the national currency. Huge cheers erupt from the seats of a Congress Hall now occupied by multitudes of multicoloured ponchos that rise and fall in seemingly never ending waves.
But the passion wanes and amount of legislation we can think of shrinks, so we pass the hours listening expectantly to the few radios that are available. The military is with us here but not there, in Guayaquil the Governor’s Palace is occupied, the occupiers are then dislodged. In Cuenca the story is similar, while just down the street from the Congress, the Supreme Court is occupied. The once reluctant taxi, bus and heavy transport drivers have now decided to throw their lot in with the indios. They are jeered, but not rejected. The Colonels are to give a press conference in Congress. The press arrives, some sneered at and jostled as accomplices of the government. Colonel Cobo is angry, shouting accusations at the President and the press. We wonder if anyone will broadcast what he says. We doubt it. The television channels are not sympathetic.
Rumours circulate that a tank division is on its way from the military base in Riobamaba, four hours to the south. The news is worrying, but there is little to do but wait, the action is now all outside: the situation will be resolved in other parts of the country, in other buildings, on other streets.
I’m a press officer but there’s not much to do. We talk about translating some of the news bulletins that are being produced, but apart from the reporters allowed to broadcast the ad hoc press conferences, there’s little way to get information to the outside. In the press room a few news men, isolated inside the building, sit watching television reports. We consider smashing the sets to keep them from hearing the biased information and staged interviews being shown on the national networks. In the end we leave them alone, deciding that they can’t do much harm. We wander aimlessly around the Congress floor, sit and listen with friends and colleagues, speculate on how the new government will be, what it will do, who will form part of the great experiment. We try to find something to eat or drink and, above all, we wait, we wait and we wait.
Radio reports are now saying that that Mahuad has been asked to resign, but that he rejects the idea. Other bulletins have him fleeing the Presidential Palace and the country. Peter Romero, the ex U.S ambassador to Ecuador, broadcasting from Lima, threatens to isolate Ecuador. We will turn it into another Cuba, he says. His statement brings a little light relief to the situation. We laugh and joke but the serious side soon intrudes. There are reports that documents at the Central Bank are being burning, that bankers and businessmen are ready to board planes, that they are sending their money out of the country in suitcases, although the truth is that here inside the building no one really knows what is going on.
A small number of soldiers suddenly rushes to the outside of the building. They are unarmed and ask us to circle them, to form a human shield and protect them from the troops they say are now approaching. We are prepared, and go outside with them, thinking little about what may come next. I am surprised at my lack of reflection. It is not something that I would have expected of myself. I am not a physically brave person: what is operating here seems to go beyond that. But the tanks and the troops never arrive, and we return, wearied, to the interior of the building.
At around four o’clock the battle appears to be over, or rather not to have begun. The tanks have apparently turned back. Generals Paco Moncayo and Rene Yandun, heroes of the 1994 border war with Peru, arrive, saluting the Parliament and stating their support for the indigenous people and the military who ‘have bravely faced up to the economic powers of the country’. The presence of Moncayo, the head of the Joint Military Command during that conflict, is the most significant. Respected by almost all sectors, he is an elected Congressman and the public resignation of his seat, his submitting to being cleansed by shamans on the congress floor and his strong support for the new parliament, serve to strengthen the crowd’s resolve. With him on board there is a feeling that the rebellion has succeeded. Only the press, the elites and, of course, the U.S. are on the other side. It’s hard to believe, but it looks like the country is about to change. It is hard to believe, and to be honest I don’t know whether we do.
Reports now confirm that Mahuad has fled, and the crowd is anxious to march on to the Presidential Palace. At six thirty a huge throng of ten or perhaps fifteen thousand people moves off through the narrow streets of a colonial sector jammed with people. The clamour reverberates off the centuries old buildings as people salute from the balconies, throwing flowers and confetti. At times it is hard to move, or to stop. A cordon of civilians surrounds the unarmed military contingent, which in turn surrounds General Moncayo.
The day is fading, and we near the Presidential Palace we are told that the palace guard has orders to shoot if necessary to secure the building. As the crowd makes its way through the streets close to the main square, tear gas begins to rain down, we duck for cover while the military contingent goes to the front. The tear gas drifts away and negotiations take place while the mass waits patiently, hoping not to fall at the last hurdle. Finally the police and the military guard withdraw and the multitude enters the Plaza de la Independencia: triumphant, singing, shouting.
In the square even the cigarette and the soft drink sellers seem relaxed. Mahuad has gone, the bankers and the right wing have been overthrown. Indigenous, Military and Social movement leaders salute from the balcony of the Presidential Palace. Thumbs are raised. The new government of national reconciliation is declared. A chance to start over. Ama quilla, ama shua, ama llulla…… No lying, no stealing, no laziness. The ‘Indios’ have returned after five hundred years to save us from ourselves.
The mood is peaceful, and by midnight people are beginning to drift away; as we walk home the roads are empty and the silence profound, surprisingly complete.
At home we watch the formation of the National Salvation Government on television: General Mendoza, the head of the Joint Military Command, Antonio Vargas, the President of CONAIE, and Carlos Solorzano, the head of the ‘People’s Parliament in Guayaquil will form a triumvirate. We sleep fitfully, wondering about a possible backlash. But it doesn’t seem to matter much; all that will be dealt with that later.
At five a.m. the phone rings. The triumvirate has fallen. Mendoza has resigned. Mahuad’s Vice President, Gustavo Noboa, has been asked to form a government, although by who is not entirely clear.
As the light breaks over the city, Ricardo Ulcuango, the vice president of CONAIE, is standing outside the Congress building, speaking to a large group of indigenous people from the province of Cotopaxi. “We will surround the building and defend it. If they try to dislodge us,’ he says, ‘we will be ready”.
The mood is tense as our small group waits for the troops to arrive, for the inevitable fight, which we will inevitably lose. But Antonio Vargas arrives first. We will leave peacefully he says. We will be back if necessary. There will be tears, but there will be no blood. He gives a final press conference in the Congress building. Not everyone agrees; many want to stay and fight. The police and troops arrive, weapons at the ready. The occupiers leave en masse. The U.S wins the round. The bankers breathe a sigh of relief.
The old Congress, meeting in a hotel in Guayaquil condemns the coup. Noboa, the new president, speaks to the country. Mahuad speaks from a house in Quito. “I am still the President,” he says, “but I will not stand in the way”.
POINT COUNTERPOINT* :Of democracy and constitutions and how the Indigenous movement changed the nature of political power in Ecuador.
by Gerard Coffey
Unfortunately, while they may be technically correct, their point of view loses much of its weight given that the accession of the new President, Gustavo Noboa, is also unconstitutional, as the previous president, Jamil Mahuad, refused to resign and should therefore according to the supreme law of the land still be the true president. It should be mentioned that there is one point on which both sides agree, constitutional or not, Mahuad will not be back.
Further complicating matters is the fact that Mahuad himself apparently approached the armed forces with the idea of taking control in an unconstitutional “Fujimori” style take over. Of course, when talking of Fujimori it might be worth remembering that his running for the Presidency of Peru for the third time is also ‘unconstitutional’.
So one might be forgiven for asking what exactly is the constitution, and what is or isn’t constitutional or democratic. What was it about the actions of the indigenous movement and its allies that provoked the chorus of cries of unconstitutionality? Perhaps the answer lies in the fact that the winners write the history books, while the losers go home, or to jail. That the provisional “National Salvation Government” which the indigenous people championed, finally had the ground cut out from under it by the Military member, General Mendoza, who resigned under pressure from the United States, is undeniable. That the indigenous people went home the next day, and a new “constitutional” president was proclaimed is also clear. This is apparently what makes the occupation of the Congress and the installation of a new popular government more unconstitutional than other “events” which have been swept aside as irrelevant by a wave of official press coverage.
What is perhaps more relevant is the question of whether we should be debating the constitutionality of this “dark episode”, as is charmingly referred to by the press and others whose morals and judgement have been stunted by self interest, or rather the value of democracies and constitutions which serve only as a guise for the most appalling acts of robbery and corruption. Should we talk therefore of constitutions or should we rather talk of ethics?
If the constitution is a set of rules to which all generally agree to abide in the best interests of the people of the country, but which are evidently, as in the case of Ecuador, unable to control the avarice of the bankers and the corruption of the politicians, how then can these vices be rooted out? What should one do if the very apparatus of rule making and change is controlled by the politicians and bankers who benefit from the status quo. The case of President, ex-president, Jamil Mahuad makes the dilemma extremely clear.
With a campaign financed in the main by one banker, who is in jail waiting some sort of “trial” for withholding taxes and embezzling clients through loans to non-existent companies, one could be pardoned for asking if Mahuad was able to act independently. It is also interesting to note that the ex-president’s campaign also received contributions from companies with state contracts, and that the one huge campaign contribution only came to light because the Banker’s crime was of such a nature that it was politically impossible not to jail the man, who unlike the other robber bankers, was arrogant enough not to flee the country. In a flurry of counter charges the contribution was revealed. Unconstitutional – no. Unethical – most certainly.
Another amusing anecdote also illuminates the problem. In March of 1999, after a bout of bank failures, inflation and devaluation, which at one point took the exchange rate of the national currency from 5,000 Sucres to the dollar to18,000, before “dropping back” to around $10,000, the government declared a banking “holiday”. Banks were closed for three days, after which all accounts were frozen. Some of those accounts, in particular terms deposits, have never been unfrozen, and their owners will now have to wait up to ten years to get their money back. After investigation, one Congressman made it public that members of the Presidential Cabinet and personal circle had, forewarned, taken all their money out of the country. No legal action was ever carried out. Unconstitutional – No. Unethical – absolutely.
Finally it is worth mentioning that in order to save his government, ex President Mahuad was on the verge of making a deal which would have allowed Abdala Bucaram, another deposed President, and one who has a string of corruption charges against him, to return to the country with impunity. No comment.
And so to the dilemma of the indigenous people. What to do when all the cards are stacked against you. When the majority of native people live without basic services, and around 80% of all Ecuadorians, indigenous or not, have an income equivalent to about US$1.50 a day. Constitution or ethics? The choice was, and still is, brutally clear.
Ethics and justice demand that corruption be rooted out, that inequality be levelled and that political and economic structures be changed. The need for dramatic change can hardly be doubted from the overall economic picture. The national currency lost 75% of its purchasing power: it was devalued by 300%, in only one year. Thousands of millions of dollars were spent on bailing out banks while spending on social services was cut to virtually nil. The price of basic foodstuffs increased between 50 and 100% in the week after the unconstitutional “dolarisation” of the economy was announced. And in reality, the country does not have sufficient dollars in order to exchange all Sucres, and therefore had to resort to maintaining term deposits frozen.
That the need for drastic change was supported by the vast majority of the population is made dramatically evident by the fact that after the indigenous people and their allies took over the National Congress and installed a popular parliament, the act was supported by a an overwhelming 70% of the population. And that according to a poll taken in a country where 90% of people cannot pay for telephones with which to answer pollster’s questions.
However, necessary or not, supported or not, ethical or not, the United States intervened to convince the Military member of the Triumvirate which was to clean up and reorient the country that he should resign and thus restore democracy and respect for the constitution. It did so with threats that the country would be isolated and cut off from all support. Turned into another Cuba. On whose behalf did it intervene one might ask ? A political concept? On behalf of the global political/financial/commercial system which it supports and controls ? On behalf of the 80% who can barely feed their families?
And so now things have “returned to normal”: the 20,000 indigenous people who took over the country’s roads and the capital city Quito have gone home; a number of the colonels that bravely supported the indigenous people and their allies in making the necessary changes will be tried by the military courts; arrest warrants have been taken out on the indigenous leader Antonio Vargas; the new government has been formed by the same politicians who have haunted the scene for the past twenty years, and are implicated through their direct or indirect associations with the economic policies, and sheer robbery, which have impoverished millions; the economic policy which was the basis for the uprising is unchanged. And now the trouble with normal is all too easy to see.
It seems almost inconceivable that the new “constitutional” government would simply continue blindly with the policies of the previous President, almost. It seems incredible that it doesn’t seem to matter that by doing so, the anger and resentment within the indigenous population and the lower ranks of the military will be pushed out of sight until the next time, and that the plight of the marginalised 80% of Ecuadorians will be made worse.
There appears to be a certain amount of panic within the political ranks, which for a day saw the control of their domain slip away, and only with the help of the United States and the shameful support of almost all the press, were able to maintain themselves and their system in place. Now that the power of the indigenous people, and the level of support for their ethical vision of government have been made plain, the economic changes that the government is proposing will have to carried out quickly, in time to avoid the next uprising. The panic can also be seen in the fact that instead of negotiating, the government has rushed to issue a warrant for Antonio Vargas, which if executed would almost certainly lead to an even more serious revolt. The feeling that this government is even more unstable than then last is unavoidable.
In the meantime the allies of the “constitution” are raising their voices. The official Catholic Church for example, in the name of Monsignor Mario Ruiz, hypocritically condemned the “Coup” while also stating that there was a social debt to be paid, but was silent on how this debt was to be repaid by present policies, or exactly how the injustice which the official church supposedly opposes, could be changed “constitutionally”.
So where does all this leave us? With an indigenous movement strengthened by the realisation of its own power; with an armed forces whose actions were ethical but which have been condemned; with an economy in ruins, and a political class desperate to finish the job of neoliberlising the state.
John Maynard Keynes once pointed out that in the long run we are all dead, but Keynes didn’t live in the Andes and his western view of economics never envisaged the tenacity with which the indigenous people have held onto their culture and economy during a long night that has lasted five hundred years. The fact that this time the native people were ultimately deprived of their opportunity to transform a corrupt and oligarchic country is, in the long run, unlikely to matter. The native people have stated that they are open to dialogue, but that the dialogue will need to be about fundamental change. If these fundamental, and fundamentally needed changes are not achieved, there seems little doubt that they will be back.
As Salvador Quishpe, one of the principal indigenous leaders stated, the major objective was to show that the indigenous people had the ability to hold power, and by doing so to reinforce their demands for a new social and financial structures based on ethics and justice for all Ecuadorians. And the likelihood is, United States or not, that in the near future they will achieve it.
* with all due deference to Aldous Huxley.
Quito 27th May 2010
The recent confrontation between the Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa and the country’s indigenous organizations was the second within a year. The first took place in September 2009, and while there was no clear winner, the fact that Correa did not, was telling. It was the first time he had met major resistance. Winning had been easy, but all of a sudden it was hard. This time it has not been easy either and the President has suffered his second bloody nose in a row. Worse still, there appears to be more to come. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Citizen’s Revolution is in a little bit of trouble. Although Rafael Correa will doubtless survive this and other confrontations with indigenous groups, unless he can clearly win or, most unlikely, decides to negotiate, key aspects of his programme now appear to be at the mercy of future indigenous mobilisations.
The context for the clashes is water and the challenge of putting the country’s chaotic and often illegal water usage into some sort of logical order. Attempting to initiate a more equitable redistribution never promised to be easy, despite the fact that few would disagree about the need to do it, or that the status quo is unfair and unsustainable. Many campesino and indigenous communities working small parcels of land dependent on irrigation have very limited access to water, while agro industrial producers use virtual rivers and pay almost nothing for the privilege, if they pay at all; some plantations simply use water not assigned to them, as if by divine right.
The new Constitution took the first step in 2008. The country’s Magna Carta now speaks of water as an inalienable right, prohibits any form of privatisation, sets priorities for use, and requires the revision of and equitable redistribution of water concessions. The complementary legislation now in the National Assembly generally keeps to the spirit of the constitution, but there are a number of fundamental and operative issues that have not been resolved during more than a year of consultations and the drafting of numerous versions of the bill. The review of water permits required by the constitution has not been carried out and, as indigenous leaders rightly point out, 64 percent of the country’s irrigation water[i] is still in the hands of one percent of the population.
The country’s major indigenous organization, CONAIE, (Confederation of Ecuadorian Indigenous Nationalities) also points out that while Constitution prohibits privatization the legislation permits hydro electric and mining projects considered priorities under the national development plan, to take precedence over other uses. But the principal dispute concerns who will have the final say over water use and planning: the state, or a pluri-national council that would represent all users. The President is clear that he will never allow the indigenous people to control water that belongs to all Ecuadorians. For its part CONAIE claims that it will not allow this government to gain control over water resources. There are holes in both arguments. No one is clear about who would end up controlling a pluri-national council. It would presumably operate by consensus, but as in all consensus decision making, some participants would be more equal than others; some group or groups would inevitably end up with control.
The government’s position also has limitations. The state as presently constituted might do a reasonable job of planning and control, and in doing so take into account the more marginalized economic groups, including indigenous communities. But some future government, some future right wing government, might very well use the same powers now being proposed in order to change distribution in favour of agro- exporters and mining companies. Of course, these hypothetical future governments would have to contend with the indigenous movement.
In normal circumstances most of these differences would have be resolved with only minor delays. But relations between the President and CONAIE have never been so grim; in an environment poisoned by accusations and insults, positions have become increasingly rigid. There is no dialogue, nor hope of one at any time soon. Marlon Santi, President of the organisation, has even called for Correa to be deposed. Delfin Tenesaca, President of CONAIE’s major regional affiliate ECUARUNARI, contradicted him, but would evidently not be troubled if the Correa government should fall.
Debate over the new legislation has now been suspended while a constitutionally required consultation is carried out with the native people. The latest dispute centers on whether the result of the consultation should be binding. CONAIE has stated that it must. It is not hard to see the their point of view; a non binding consultation is little more than an exercise in legitimacy and, worse still, could be used by the government as an opportunity to undermine leaders and divide communities. Legislation to regulate this type of consultation is lacking, but the Constitution does not allow for binding consultations and there is little likelihood that the proposal will be accepted by the government.
Binding consultations put power in the hands of the consulted at the expense of the state, and the state is the raison d’être of this government. It is not hard to imagine that binding consultations over natural resources such as oil or minerals also leading to a breakdown in the political structure of the country. A redesigned, decentralized state where regions exercised control over resources would not necessarily be a bad thing, but if that is the issue it would be better debated in another form and in another context. To suggest that a binding consultation would do nothing more than provide for better bargaining is rather ingenuous. In any case, other groups have the right to be consulted, and if consultations were binding it is not hard to visualize one group’s suggestions or requirements being contradicted by another’s.
No one has, or should have been, taken unawares by all of this. The conflict has been easy to predict. Three years of government invective, small and not so small confrontations, failed dialogue, dialogues that were never intended to succeed, differences of style and distinct vision of what Ecuador should be, and who should benefit from natural resources provide the context. As for the specifics, this protest is characterised by CONAIE’s need to recover political ground and dignity in the face of the President’s assault on its authority. In recent years the organisation has been floundering. No longer the force it was, when in the nineteen nineties and early years of this new century it also spoke for large part of the non indigenous population, the movement has been feeling its lack of influence and is fighting to be heard by a government that, ironically, has been doing more for indigenous populations than any other in the country’s history.
Unfortunately for all concerned the government’s strategy has involved disqualifying any social sector organizations that could provide opposition to its political agenda. It was no surprise therefore that Rafael Correa was so keen to disrespect and divide the indigenous leadership, given its evident, if until now latent, political power. It was most likely a political strategy rather than personal choice, and as such has not been limited to indigenous groups. In some cases the strategy has worked in discrediting political enemies, but it has evidently not worked with CONAIE. The President’s exhorting of the non indigenous population to support him, and rise up against the indigenous people, has hardly helped. What it has done is to provide a measure of legitimacy for racism which, although significantly reduced in historical terms, is still present, especially amongst older and economically more comfortable sectors of the population.
One of the President’s themes is that the general level of the present indigenous leadership is poor, and that Marlon Santi himself would be better off in an a more subordinate position. Whatever the truth of the statements may be, and while there is a feeling that Santi will not go down as CONAIE’s greatest leader, he is its elected President, and as such due the respect his position merits. Insulting the leader is tantamount to insulting the group as a whole, and as a result the confrontation has become extremely personal; many indigenous people now hate Rafael Correa.
The intense feeling of personal antagonism is widely shared, but beyond it the indigenous position is hardly homogenous. There are personal goals: Santi anxious to disprove what the President says about him, the recently elected Tenesaca eager to prove his mettle and leadership capacity, and Lourdes Tiban, the indigenous Asambleista , for whom personal goals appear to have the upper hand. The movement is also changing. Newer more right wing figures are emerging, class is becoming a factor and young indigenous people are far more connected to the outside world than was the case twenty years ago. There are also larger agendas. Leaders and communities from the different regions have different visions of the state and their participation in it. Those from the mountain communities generally live shoulder to shoulder with the mestizo population and this influences their agenda and possibilities for action. On the other hand, leaders from the central/southern Amazon region, (Santi is from the Amazon community of Sarayaku, which has long resisted oil exploration), work with an agenda based on the autonomous control of large ancestral territories.
As part of this independent world view, some Amazonian leaders appear willing to work with whoever seems prepared to help them achieve their aims. The recent meetings with the Junta Civica, a right wing business organisation from the City of Guayaquil, is a case in point. The meeting, which apparently involved gaining support from the Junta for joint actions against the President, was roundly condemned by most left of centre observers, and the leadership of CONAIE (Marlon Santi was strangely absent at the time) was heavily criticized by its own membership. While there has been some suggestion that the meeting was a well concealed government sting, the attitude of the Amazonian leaders seems to confirm that that the Junta Civica’s advances were not entirely unwelcome.
The end game
Whatever course the confrontation may take in the near future, it is evident that President Correa has been put in check. His statement to the effect that he is willing to shelve the water legislation, a proposal now seconded by the head of the Water Authority, can be seen as a bluff. This is not a real answer. If the legislation is shelved, everyone loses, including Correa. The Citizens Revolution will lose momentum, and will almost certainly find itself in the same position over other pieces of legislation, and the implementation of major mining projects in indigenous territory. For Correa, winning or going home appear to be the only options.
It is obvious that the strategy based on electoral success is falling short. Winning the Presidency is not enough. There are groups in society that are too important to ignore, whatever the results of an election may be. In many democratic countries the mainstream press and the bankers cannot be ignored by any class of government. In this particular case, with the help of the water legislation the indigenous movement, particularly that of the central mountain provinces, has been able to place itself in the same position.
How far CONAIE is willing to push its agenda is uncertain; future action will depend in part on who has the upper hand within the organisation itself. Marlon Santi´s position, and his political stance vis a vis President Correa, can only have been strengthened by this latest round of resistance. The major question though is whether the organization and its leadership can resist the government´s media firepower. A taste of what is to come has been provided the latest accusation that the CONAIE leadership has misused funds, something strenuously denied by the organization.
While cooler heads might once have been able to resolve this impasse, positions have become so polarised, and the bitterness so ingrained, that at present it is hard to see any kind of constructive dialogue taking place. One erudite left wing commentator recently wrote that the battle over the water legislation had resulted in a historic victory. But while indigenous groups appear to have won something, on closer examination it is hard to see exactly what that something is. The suspicion remains that there are no winners at all in this conflict.
[i] According to concessions handed out up to 2005. This does not account for massive amounts of illegal water usage.