This Sunday, November 16, Ecuadorians will go to the polls to vote on the so-called “2025 Popular Consultation”. The referendum was called by right-wing President Daniel Noboa, who seeks to change the country’s legal framework to, analysts claim, advance his neoliberal political project.

The government’s need for a new constitution

Without a doubt, the most important question in the referendum concerns the possibility of establishing a Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution. Ecuador is currently governed by the 2008 Constitution, written during the administration of Rafael Correa, which, while responding to various needs of the former president’s social democratic project at the time, also includes a series of demands that various social movements and left-wing political parties had fought for over decades of struggle.

Among the rights included in the current constitution are the:

prohibition of labor flexibilityprohibition of the establishment of foreign military basesprogressive strengthening of public health and education granting of rights to nature (a legal novelty in the world)and many others

In short, it is a constitution that guarantees rights, something that contradicts a series of basic principles of neoliberalism, which has greatly annoyed certain economic elites in the country who are now promoting its radical transformation. To do so, Noboa and his allies have decided to rely on a discourse that mixes uncertainty with political attack.

In a recent interview, when asked what type of constitution he would promote if a constitutional process were to be convened, President Noboa said that he would reveal that information the day after winning the referendum. This has generated a series of criticisms of the executive branch’s secrecy, as this secrecy could be hiding a series of rights eliminations and anti-popular measures that the executive branch is planning.

Read More: Noboa opens door to US military bases

This seems to be the case if we take into account the statements made by some government spokespeople who have talked about introducing hourly work, eliminating free public education at universities, and eliminating the rights of nature. In short, the drafting of a neoliberal constitution.

Noboa has also sought to justify the need for a new constitution because, he claims, the current one protects criminals: “When the YES vote wins, criminals, thieves, and murderers will no longer have anywhere to hide,” he said. However, several analysts and journalists have seen these statements as a manipulation of what the current constitution actually says, in order to justify a massive vote in favor of the government.

Using Correísmo as a scapegoat: Noboa’s repeated strategy

Finally, the executive branch has once again resorted to a strategy that has brought it success in the past: labeling the current constitution as “Correísta” (i.e., belonging to former President Correa’s political party). Although Correísmo is one of the main political forces in the country, its opposition has also generated a kind of unity among various sectors of society that find in their rejection of Correísmo a banner of unity.

For example, in recent days, as the government’s campaign has accelerated on all fronts, photographs were published of former Correísta Vice President Jorge Glas, who was transferred to a maximum-security prison recently inaugurated by the government, where the country’s most dangerous prisoners will be held, according to Noboa.

Glas was convicted for allegedly participating in a corruption scheme, although these convictions have been criticized by former President Correa (who also has several court convictions against him, although he lives abroad) as acts of political persecution.

“Jorge Glas among the most ‘dangerous’ prisoners? Shameless! Everything about you is showmanship, malice, and falsehood … [Noboa] I must admit that you are achieving your goal: to accustom people to showmanship, cruelty, lies, ineptitude, and dishonesty,” Correa posted on X, in response to the news of Glas’s transfer.

Allowing the installation of foreign military bases

Another of the most controversial questions is whether the constitution will be reformed to allow the installation of foreign military bases. The current constitution expressly prohibits this. From the outset, Noboa has sought to remove this sovereign restriction, especially after his clear alignment with Washington’s foreign policy and his declared alliance with Israel.

A few days ago, US Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem visited Ecuador, specifically Manta, where a US military base operated at the beginning of the 21st century until the arrival of the Correa government, which did not renew the agreement. Many have seen this visit as a clear statement of intent regarding the location and purpose of the possible military base.

According to Noboa, the arrival of foreign soldiers would help to halt the most serious crisis of violence in Ecuador’s history, which is part of a territorial dispute between drug trafficking groups and which, in 2025 alone, has left more than 7,000 dead, despite the government’s claims that its “Plan Fénix” (security plan) is yielding positive results.

However, several security experts have questioned whether the real intention behind the installation of military bases has anything to do with the government’s urgency to stop structural violence in the country. Rather, they claim that it is part of a broader geopolitical project by the United States to secure strategic military positions in the face of rivalry with China in the South Pacific Ocean.

Read More: What else is behind the “fight” against drug trafficking in Latin America?

Reduction of legislators and defunding of political parties

The last two questions seek to reform the constitution to reduce the number of assembly members from 151 to 73. According to the government, the large number of national assembly members represents an unnecessary expense for the state coffers, and it argues that a reduction would generally improve the level of public debate among legislators.

However, several voices have spoken out against this proposal because, they claim, it seeks to reduce the representation of political groups in the legislature, promoting a kind of two-party system between ADN (the ruling party) and the Citizen Revolution (Correísmo). In addition, the reduction in the number of assembly members directly impacts provinces with smaller populations, where several assembly members are currently elected, but under Noboa’s reform, they would only have one or two representatives. According to the promoters of the NO vote, this would lead to a reduction in political representation and a deterioration of democracy.

Noboa also proposes that the state stop contributing a certain amount of money to political parties. Currently, the constitution guarantees that political parties that receive a minimum percentage of the popular vote are entitled to public funds to develop, conduct election campaigns, etc. The executive branch argues that this is wasted money.

On the contrary, several voices see the decision as a way to exile political parties that do not have powerful financiers or do not belong to the large economic groups in the democratic game, as is the case with Noboa, son of the richest man in Ecuador and member of one of the country’s oligarchic families. Or, seen from the other side, that political parties allied with or belonging to the wealthiest have an unfair advantage over parties that do not have enormous resources.

Read More: Authoritarianism, austerity, repression, and false narratives: the crisis in Ecuador

This is the opinion of former presidential candidate Andrés Arauz, who said: “[The purpose behind the question] is to make politics unequal. Thus, the ability to get your message across as a candidate depends on whether you are a millionaire, whether you can afford to buy advertising space on television or radio. It does not depend on whether you are poor and have good ideas, in which case your message can still be heard. This is the oligarchization of political debate:”

Two visions for the country: only one is possible

Sunday will be one of the most important elections in the country’s recent history. At stake is something deeper than a presidency or a mayoralty: it is the political definition of the country’s model.

On the one hand, there is the recent past, which, after a complex process of political convergence, managed to produce one of the most progressive constitutions guaranteeing rights in the nearly 200 years of republican history.

On the other hand, the future of a country almost completely aligned with neoliberal doctrine and Washington’s geopolitical project (which are linked) is being projected. Ecuador, unlike its neighbors, has been a curious country that has resisted political projects that seek to neoliberalize its economy, as happened during the governments of the 1990s and early 2000s, when social mobilizations even overthrew presidents who were close to this economic policy.

Likewise, the last three administrations (Lenín Moreno, Guillermo Lasso, and Daniel Noboa) have had a clear neoliberal agenda that has not been able to be fully implemented, partly due to popular mobilizations and citizen response, but also due to a constitution that protects certain rights that would need to be eliminated to pave the way for ultra-liberalism.

The post Neoliberalism or not? Ecuador heads to the polls on November 16 appeared first on Peoples Dispatch.

From Peoples Dispatch via this RSS feed