Ecuador's Boring Election
I'm late to this, of course, because the election was on Sunday and the winner has been obvious for a long time. But after reading news reports of Rafael Correa's victory, I thought of one thing that doesn't get mentioned much--this was a boring election. After all, this is a country without much history of stable democratic rule, and Correa even faced a serious crisis in 2010. From the magic of Wikipedia, here are presidents in Ecuador for the last twenty years:
| 48 |  | Sixto Durán Ballén | August 10, 1992 | August 10, 1996 | President |
| 49 |  | Abdalá Bucaram | August 10, 1996 | February 6, 1997 | President |
| - | | Rosalía Arteaga | February 6, 1997 | February 11, 1997 | Acting President |
| - | | Fabián Alarcón | February 11, 1997 | August 10, 1998 | Interim President |
| 50 |  | Jamil Mahuad | August 10, 1998 | January 21, 2000 | President |
| 51 | | Gustavo Noboa | January 22, 2000 | January 15, 2003 | President |
| 52 |  | Lucio Gutiérrez | January 15, 2003 | April 20, 2005 | President |
| 53 |  | Alfredo Palacio | April 20, 2005 | January 14, 2007 | President |
| 54 |  | Rafael Correa | January 15, 2007 | Incumbent | President |
That isn't pretty. It's Boz and Mike Allison have more skeptical views, and they're well taken, but look: this is a noteworthy state of affairs for a country that was in years of constant upheaval. Back in 2006 as the presidential election went to a second round, a Washington Post article ended with this:
Still, many Ecuadorans have had it with promises and politics. Vladimir Peña, 33, an accountant, said he would like wholesale change but sees most of the candidates as opportunistic populists. He invalidated his ballot.
"We've had lots of populists here," he said. "And what happens is they last six months, and that's it."
A lot of people thought that was a distinct possibility, even probable. But over six years later, Correa won a boring election. I need to come up with a theory of boring elections.
5 comments:
Dear Mr. Weeks, I am sorry to say that your article reflects a definite ignorance about one of the most interesting and succesful political phenomena in the world, i.e. the case of a democratic leader that carries on a non orthodox politic, confronting the established powers, and increasing his following even with the majority of the hegemonic media against him. A leader that has improved income distribution, national accounts, confronted pressures from the U.S., international financial institutions, and mantained governability in a multicultural, politicized country. He has tripled the amount of votes his opposition candidate got, a banker that represents the elites inEcuador, in a electoral campaign respectful de all freedoms. I wonder if your students can accept your leadership or have enough critical thinking as to understand how faible are your articles.
I'll just add that I'll consider it particularly noteworthy if Correa can hand off power in a peaceful democratic transition in 2017. If he does, he'll be the first president in 20 years to do so. That would be a very positive sign for the country.
Anyonmous: you say you disagree, but then basically make the same argument, namely that much has happened yet there was a boring election.
A "theory of boring elections"? That sounds like a pretty boring post. Call me crazy, but I think political scientists ought to be in the business of explaining why some candidates win, why some candidates lose, and why some win or lose big.
Seems like the majority of the Ecuadorian electorate prefers a "boring" election, over those previous chaotic 20 years or so. LOL
Post a Comment