NationStates Jolt Archive

Ecuadorean voters have convincingly approved a new constitution that increases presidential powers. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7640704.stm)

Some of the key points of the new Constitution:

Tightening controls of vital industries and reducing monopolies
Declaring some foreign loans illegitimate
Expropriating and redistributing idle farm land
Allowing the president to stand for a second four-year term in office
Giving free health care for older citizens
Allowing civil marriage for gay partners


It would seem that the leftist government in Ecuador has the support of the people. While I am sure the neo-liberal free market crowd will predict the eventual ruin of the economy and claim he's a puppet of Chavez, I think this is a step in the right direction. It looks like Correa is attempting to diversify and decentralise economic power, as well as allowing more social liberties. Hopefully the boosts to health care and small land holdings will create a burgeoning middle class to sustain a developed economy.

On a more general level, we can see this as an example of the grassroots support that more moderate leftist programs seem to be enjoying in Latin America.

You may now have the same debate about Chavez that is so prevalent here.

As with any government -- if the people pass this, then they will have to live with the benefits and consequences.

I wish them the best of luck -- and wouldn't it be great just to say of loans we owe others, "Nope. Illegitimate. Not repaying, and you can't do anything to me."

Hmm, a Constitution that gives people handouts while simultaneously bolstering presidential power? That doesn't sound suspicious at all.

As with any government -- if the people pass this, then they will have to live with the benefits and consequences.

I wish them the best of luck -- and wouldn't it be great just to say of loans we owe others, "Nope. Illegitimate. Not repaying, and you can't do anything to me."

The issue of loan repayment in the developing world is a sticky one. Often, latin American nations became indebted to developing nations when the US backed regime decided to buy lots of guns in order to shoot the rebels, i.e. the people who are now in power. Such was the case when the US refused to recognise Aristide unless he agreed to pay the debt incurred by the Duvaliers.

It seems somewhat immoral to insist that a country pay the bill for its own oppression.

Well, as usual, people sometimes don't get it about constitutions and presidential powers.

First point, I like Correa, I really do, I prefer Correa several times over Chávez. I think he hasn't done a bad job during his current term.

The problem is that Correa is not forever. The constitution will remain being the constitution after Correa leaves office. The next president could be a sack of pure and stinking offal mixed with crap. That ball of bile could use the presidential powers guaranteed in the constitution to abuse his power as much as he wants. That's the risk when you give too much power to a seat that can shift quality easily. And that is not assuming the same Correa starts going wild during the last part of his term, or his next term, and suddenly goes crazy. So far he has been good, but that doesn't mean he can keep being good in the future.

Plus, and this can't be as easily debated, but is still a position of mine, presidents tend to be better when there are a strict set of rules controlling them and they have to answer to other powers. As soon they have more power than they are used to, they go nuts. I hope that doesn't happen to Correa, as he is pretty decent, but it is a possibility nonetheless.

[attempting to diversify and decentralise economic power, as well as allowing more social liberties.

While, at the same time, centralizing political power in the person of the President. I like democracy and all that, but this seems to partially be a step towards building the office of President into that of a strong-man.

Well, as usual, people sometimes don't get it about constitutions and presidential powers.

First point, I like Correa, I really do, I prefer Correa several times over Chávez. I think he hasn't done a bad job during his current term.

The problem is that Correa is not forever. The constitution will remain being the constitution after Correa leaves office. The next president could be a sack of pure and stinking offal mixed with crap. That ball of bile could use the presidential powers guaranteed in the constitution to abuse his power as much as he wants. Within the bounds of the new Constitution.

Mind you the other additions to the Constitution, including the provisions dealing with idle lands, health care, reduction of monopolies, civil marriage for gays and so on have as much Constitutional standing as those allowing the longer terms of office, and the power to dissolve Congress (admittedly problematic, but not so much if it triggers elections immediately....dissolve....not suspend).

Without having the text of the current Constitution, and the proposed amendment in front of me, or a really great understanding if the civil law system in Ecuador, most of what I'm saying is speculation based on other Constitutional models in civil law jurisdictions. It appears to be an attempt to create a more diversified power base, which could come back to bite him in the ass, sure...ok fuck it, I'm going to look at the Constitution (http://pdba.georgetown.edu/Constitutions/Ecuador/ecuador.html) as it currently stands and get back to you.

Hmm, a Constitution that gives people handouts while simultaneously bolstering presidential power? That doesn't sound suspicious at all.

A new right has been added to the variety of political rights in favor of citizens: the right to terminate the term of public officials elected by popular vote (article 26). This right was included taking into consideration the political events experienced in the country in February 1997. It grants citizens a fundamental political control over their rulers which was not available before because of the requirements set by the Constitution and secondary laws.

The new constitution also includes an explicit right to terminate the term by poulare vote.

http://www.humanrightsmoreira.com/dhnceingles.htm

I was unable to find anything yet on how the president's power is increased. According to the BBC article, it increases the amount of consecutive terms to either two or three, I"m not sure. I don't see this as problematic as it more stringent than Canada's current policy of unlimited terms.

Aelosia, puedes encontrar una copia de la nueva constitucion en español? No logro encontrarlo en ingles.

Ok, just skimming through...the problem with the Constitution is not the wording itself...it's the systems (or lack thereof) set up to support positive rights, and to protect negative rights. Their constitution has a section for economic, social and cultural rights that go above and beyond anything you have guaranteed in the Constitutions of Canada or the US...but pretty words don't mean much if there is no enforcement, or no mechanisms in place to allow the full enjoyment of those rights.

Changing the rights of the family to allow the civil marriage of gays is no small matter, considering that most states in the US still don't allow this. In the current (pre-amendment) Consitution, there are already provisions which make healthcare a right, including the right to adequate food and potable water. Again...nice to say, but if it's not actually being carried out presently, then it's pretty meaningless.

So the worries about 'the Constitution will still be there' are valid enough...but as it stands, the Constitution pre-amendments contains a fuckload of rights that don't appear to be stringently enforced as it is. If Correa is going to set up more systems to allow the realisation of those rights, then power to him.

http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=3104

Ecuador has apparently enshrined environmental laws into its constitution.

Neato.

Art. 1. Nature or Pachamama, where life is reproduced and exists, has the right to exist, persist, maintain and regenerate its vital cycles, structure, functions and its processes in evolution.

Every person, people, community or nationality, will be able to demand the recognitions of rights for nature before the public organisms. The application and interpretation of these rights will follow the related principles established in the Constitution.

http://www.greenchange.org/article.php?id=3104

Ecuador has apparently enshrined environmental laws into its constitution.

Neato.

I JUST found this on another site. Goddamn Indians influencing shit...don't they know they are inferior and that nature needs to be subjugated!?

Fuck. There goes the economy.

It also seems unfair to not pay for what you've bought and used.
I'm sure that no one here would have problems demanding that the US pay its bills.

I JUST found this on another site. Goddamn Indians influencing shit...don't they know they are inferior and that nature needs to be subjugated!?

Fuck. There goes the economy.

Oh no! We all depend on the economy on a fundamental level!

It's not like the environment, which is just some way for humans to acquire resources.

Oh, wait.......

I JUST found this on another site. Goddamn Indians influencing shit...don't they know they are inferior and that nature needs to be subjugated!?

Fuck. There goes the economy.
Yeah, you can't trust those Redskins for nothing. When was the last time they won a championship, anyhow?

Seriously though -- making sure people won't be destroying where they live sounds like a pretty damned sound idea to me.

anyone got a link to the text of it?

anyone got a link to the text of it?

Not yet.

It also seems unfair to not pay for what you've bought and used.
I'm sure that no one here would have problems demanding that the US pay its bills.

It's not so cut and dry. Most of the HICs (highly indebted countries) experienced hardcore capital flight (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/CapitalFlight.html) as corrupt officials siphoned the loan funds off to buy condos in Miami or whatever.

So you have a situation where governments become indebted, and private individuals benefit. There have been rare occasions where those funds have been traced, frozen and seized (think of the Pinochet family assets abroad for example) but in the main, that money flowing out of the country (http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ThirdWorldDebt.html) goes right back into the private banks that made the loans, and it's win win for them. That sort of shady dealing needs to be handled on an international level as well.

On top of that you had situations where interest repayment was itself strangling the economies of the borrowing nations...no fucking way should those loans have been given out in the first place...sort of like the current problem in the US. No-interest periods with heavy SAP (structural adjustment program) strings including selling off nationalised industries wholesale to free up capital for whatever project the country was being railroaded into...the beneficiaries of said sales in the main being the same foreign businesses that were from their own private banks issuing the loans and pushing the international lending institutions (IMF etc) to do so as well.

It's all so fucking corrupt, it's no wonder people are questioning the legitimacy of the entire thing.

Oh no! We all depend on the economy on a fundamental level!

It's not like the environment, which is just some way for humans to acquire resources.

Oh, wait.......
Don't be stupid. You can always buy a new environment.

Yeah, you can't trust those Redskins for nothing. When was the last time they won a championship, anyhow?

Seriously though -- making sure people won't be destroying where they live sounds like a pretty damned sound idea to me.

Yes, but this highlights a fundamental problem with our ability to analyse the current Constitution and the amendments to it. It's all well and good to have a provision that gives Constitutional personhood to the environment...but we have absolutely no legal guidance as to how that provision might be interpreted, or implemented. In fact, we have no such guidance when it comes to ANY of the provisions, new or old.

Alright, can't find the full text anywhere...or any text actually, but this (http://www.elpais.com/articulo/internacional/nueva/Constitucion/Ecuador/refuerza/poderes/Correa/elpepiint/20080726elpepiint_5/Tes) Spanish (from Spain) news article explains a little bit more about what powers are being passed over to the President.

El texto deja en sus manos la formulación de la política monetaria, crediticia, cambiaria y financiera, que antes manejaba el Banco Central de Ecuador. También le confiere la facultad de promulgar decretos leyes de emergencia y de disolver al Parlamento si "obstruye la ejecución del Plan Nacional de Desarrollo".
Ok basically it says that rather than the Central Bank of Ecuador making all the political monetary, credit, exchange and financing decisions, the President is going to be doing that now. We still don't know if that has to be done with approval of their Congress, or how that actually works, just that the political aspects of this kind of decision making is passing to government.

He's also able to pass emergency laws by decree...which by definition would not have to pass through Congress first. Generally, and this is just my observation, these sorts of powers come with an 'expiry date'. In Canada for example, the Prime Minister can use ithe POGG power (Peace/Order/Good Government) to pass an emergency martial law (as has been done) without Parliament's consent, but that law will only be valid for a short period of time and eventually does have to be vetted by the House...and there are always consequences for stepping over Parliament like that.

The last point mention is the ability to dissolve Parliament if it obstructs the execution of the new National Development Plan. Now this sounds sinister but it tells us something important. It means that Parliament would in fact have the ability to stall whatever plan the President wanted to implement in order to give effect to these new constitutional amendments. That means that he cannot simply write up a law that gives free health care to all senior citizens and pass it himself. It has to go through Parliament.

Depending on the powers conferred in your Constitution, the power to enact 'emergency laws' without Parliament's approval is limited...there is no way he could say that senior health care falls under that head of power. He would have to pass it through the House.

The power to dissolve Parliament in times of deadlock is also held by the Prime Minister in Canada by the way. It triggers an election.

So I'm not seeing anything here that suggests any sort of move towards a dictatorship.

Oooh, I almost missed this:
'Muerte cruzada'. El presidente podrá disolver el Parlamento en los tres primeros años de legislatura. El Legislativo podrá enjuiciar al presidente previo acuerdo de la Corte Constitucional.
The President will be able to dissolve Parliament three years (from other sources) into its four year term. In return, the Legislature will be able judge the previous president's adherence to the the agreement, in the Constitutional Court. Meaning, yes, he can dissolve Parliament, but the new Parliament will be able to then look at him and see if he is sticking to the Constitution, which could ultimately mean he'd be removed if found to be in violation. Check and balance.

http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/files/Asamblea/Nueva_Constitucion_del_Ecuador.pdf

Link, it's a PDF article. That's the constitution.

http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/files/Asamblea/Nueva_Constitucion_del_Ecuador.pdf

Link, it's a PDF article. That's the constitution.

AWESOME, thank you!

http://www.eltelegrafo.com.ec/files/Asamblea/Nueva_Constitucion_del_Ecuador.pdf

Link, it's a PDF article. That's the constitution.

sweet

also, my toddler-level spanish still works enough for me to get the jist of portions of that. go team me!


(i wonder if there is an officially sanctioned english translation out anywhere - maybe the consulate might have something?)

Okay.Article 144, second paragraph clearly states that the Presidential term is four years, and the person can be re-elected only once.

Article 148 discusses how the POE (President of Ecuador) can dissolve parliament. Someone with better Spanish legalese can look at it, but it seems the POE would require the permission of the Supreme Court to do so.

Article 148 discusses how the POE (President of Ecuador) can dissolve parliament. Someone with better Spanish legalese can look at it, but it seems the POE would require the permission of the Supreme Court to do so.


Art.148: La Presidenta o Presidente de la República podrá disolver la Asamblea Nacional cuando, a su juicio, ésta se hubiera arrogado funciones que no le competan constitucionalmente, previo dictamen favorable de la Corte Constitucional;o si de forma reiterada e injustificada obstruye la ejecución del Plan Nacional de Desarrollo, o por grave crisis política y conmoción interna.

Esta facultad podrá ser ejercida por una sola vez en los tres primeros años de su mandato. En un plazo máximo de siete días después de la publicación del decreto de disolución, el Consejo Nacional Electoral convocará para una misma fecha a elecciones legislativas y presidenciales para el resto de los respectivos períodos.

Hasta la instalación de la Asamblea Nacional, la Presidenta o Presidente de la República podrá, previo dictamen favorable de la Corte Constitucional, expedir decretos-leyes de urgencia económica, que podrán ser aprobados o derogados por el órgano
legislativo.
The President of the Republic can dissolve the National Assembly when, in his/her judgment, it has taken on functions for which it is not constitutionally competent, (prior approval of the Constitutional Court is necessary), or if it unjustifiably and repeatedly obstructs the excecution of the National Development Plan, or for serious political crises and internal commotion.

This ability can be exercised once only in the first three years of the mandate of the Assembly. Within a maximum of seven days after the publication of the dissolution decree, the National Electoral Congress will call for legislative and presidential elections to fill the rest of the respective mandated terms.

Until the Nacional Assembly is (re)constituted, the President will be able to, if permitted by the Constitutional Court, to declare emergency economic decrees (laws) that can be approved or disapproved by the legislative organ.


Ok, that's my off the cuff translation...basically then the Assembly can only be dissolved for seven days tops AND only with permission from the Constitutional Court, before an election is called...and doing so also triggers a Presidential election. During those seven days, he can 'rule by decree' on economic matters only, and those decrees can later be legitimised, or overturned.

The President of the Republic can dissolve the National Assembly when, in his/her judgment, it has taken on functions for which it is not constitutionally competent, (prior approval of the Constitutional Court is necessary), or if it unjustifiably and repeatedly obstructs the excecution of the National Development Plan, or for serious political crises with an internal motion....

I read that as "and internal commotion".

Interesting...Art. 152 also forbids close relatives of the President or Vice President from becoming ministers....to the fourth grade of consanguinity..okay, got that figured out.

Table of consanguinity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:CousinTree.svg)
Everyone up to great-grandparents vertically, including all the people in the rows going horizontally. That cuts out a lot of possible relations who simply can't hold a ministry.

I read that as "and internal commotion".

You're right...when I copied and pasted, a bunch of the lines got stuck together, and I though that was two words, not one. Okay. Changes.

I'm skipping ahead to the indigenous law bit.

You're right...when I copied and pasted, a bunch of the lines got stuck together, and I though that was two words, not one. Okay. Changes.

Internal motion sounds nice, though. :fluffle:

Internal motion sounds nice, though. :fluffle:

I totally always wished I could get a cam view of that :D

Oooooohooo!

Art. 174: Art. 171.- Las autoridades de las comunidades, pueblos y nacionalidades indígenas ejercerán funciones jurisdiccionales, con base en sus tradiciones ancestrales y su derecho propio, dentro de su ámbito territorial, con garantía de participación y decisión de las mujeres. Las autoridades aplicarán normas y procedimientos propios para la solución de sus conflictos internos, y que no sean contrarios a la Constitución y a los derechos humanos reconocidos en instrumentos internacionales.
El Estado garantizará que las decisiones de la jurisdicción indígena sean respetadas por las instituciones y autoridades públicas. Dichas decisiones estarán sujetas al control de constitucionalidad. La ley establecerá los mecanismos de coordinación y cooperación entre la jurisdicción indígena y la jurisdicción ordinaria.
The authorities of indigenous communities, peoples and nationalities, will exercise jurisdictional functions, based on their ancestral traditions and their own rights, within their territories, with a guarantee of the participation and decision making power of women. These authorities will apply their own norms and procedures for the solution of internal conflicts, as long as they are not contrary to the Constitution, or to internationally recognised human rights.

The state will guarantee that decisions made within the indigenous jurisdiction will be respected by public authorities and institutions. These decisions will be subject to constitutional control. The law will establish mechanisms of coordination and cooperation between indigenous jurisdiction and regular jurisdictions.




I'm very interested to see how this in particular will play out.

It also seems unfair to not pay for what you've bought and used.
I'm sure that no one here would have problems demanding that the US pay its bills.
They're small so they can get away with it. Or can they? There WILL be consequences, market-wise. They seem to think that they can live without foreign income. For their own well being, I hope they're right.

Regarding companies, declaring illegal all debts like that will make him lose the last shred of credibility he has. Taking the whole Odebrecht affair, that Correa quite likely provoked to look well in the picture days before a referendum, is an example of how he treats companies. And that even isn't about a corruption scandal, the dam is actually ready and working for a year now. Companies will be scared by things like that, he'd benefit a lot more of that if he renegotiated the debt.

What's the problem of paying the bills? This calls for a Latin American example: Brazil is paying its bills, bills from a time that financed most of its infrastructure, and is doing fine today, stable, higher per capita income, and above all, has achieved investment grade. Thing is, that's what attracts companies to build infrastructure and offer services. Companies like Odebrecht who was kicked in the groin and told to leave like that. Can Correa fund such things with Ecuadorian coffers over and over? I doubt so.

I'd bitch about how huge constitutions almost always end up being largely disrespected and even uncompliable, or about how people can call Correa a "moderate" and "different from Chavez" seeing the way he meddles in the TV and newspapers since his term began, but I'm running out of time.

The point is, moratory isn't the right solution for the people of Ecuador, it's very risky and might take years for Ecuador to get back on its feet (took Argentina a long while, and they were a lot more respectful about it than Ecuador). That's all, I'm going back to the shadows before the bolsheviks burn me alive! *jumps down in the sewer*

A new constitution in Ecuador?

http://www.newgrounds.com/bbs/user_images/pics/1/8455000/ngbbs44328f77ced80.jpg

And I don't have to predict economic malaise. Ecuador's already there - inflation is way too high and growth is the lowest in South America. The response: to make it even more difficult for money to come in and do some investing.

Yay for weird left-populist logic!

They're small so they can get away with it. Or can they? There WILL be consequences, market-wise. They seem to think that they can live without foreign income. For their own well being, I hope they're right.

Regarding companies, declaring illegal all debts like that will make him lose the last shred of credibility he has. Taking the whole Odebrecht affair, that Correa quite likely provoked to look well in the picture days before a referendum, is an example of how he treats companies. And that even isn't about a corruption scandal, the dam is actually ready and working for a year now. Companies will be scared by things like that, he'd benefit a lot more of that if he renegotiated the debt.

What's the problem of paying the bills? This calls for a Latin American example: Brazil is paying its bills, bills from a time that financed most of its infrastructure, and is doing fine today, stable, higher per capita income, and above all, has achieved investment grade. Thing is, that's what attracts companies to build infrastructure and offer services. Companies like Odebrecht who was kicked in the groin and told to leave like that. Can Correa fund such things with Ecuadorian coffers over and over? I doubt so.

I'd bitch about how huge constitutions almost always end up being largely disrespected and even uncompliable, or about how people can call Correa a "moderate" and "different from Chavez" seeing the way he meddles in the TV and newspapers since his term began, but I'm running out of time.

The point is, moratory isn't the right solution for the people of Ecuador, it's very risky and might take years for Ecuador to get back on its feet (took Argentina a long while, and they were a lot more respectful about it than Ecuador). That's all, I'm going back to the shadows before the bolsheviks burn me alive! *jumps down in the sewer*

Do you have any evidence for these claims? You can post them in Spanish if you like.

A new constitution in Ecuador?

And I don't have to predict economic malaise. Ecuador's already there - inflation is way too high and growth is the lowest in South America. The response: to make it even more difficult for money to come in and do some investing.

Yay for weird left-populist logic!

That was almost an argument.

No. Wait.

It wasn't.

That was almost an argument.

No. Wait.

It wasn't.
It was a commentary. Do you expect me to argue against the constitution? Where's the point in doing that? I'll just get to hear the age-old defense of "the majority approved it" as if that added any value to it.

Firstly, Ecuador changes constitutions almost faster than governments. Every president comes in and changes the constitution to correspond to their particular personal goal. If anything, that just smacks of a complete lack of respect for the institution. So I'm not particularly overwhelmed, and anyone who thinks this is an actual lasting change will need a reality check.

The economic arguments against the constitution are obvious - they enshrine Correa's world view and policies, which so far hasn't helped the country grow, despite record oil prices and help from cashed up godfather governments. Expropriation and redistribution of land was also tried in a certain African country...let's hope the friends of Correa who will be getting this stuff know a little more about farming than the friends of Mugabe. Expect sluggish growth and high inflation to continue, followed by more and more outrageous demands from labour groups for higher wages to compensate for this inflation, followed by a big stand-off between public sector unions and the government. Eventually the people actually suffering from all these strikes are fed up and vote for someone to break the public sector and thus the power of these unions. That tends to be the pattern with centre-left nationalisation policies.

The indigenous part has some promise to it, and the policies on native populations are by far the best part of this current Bolivarian bunch of governments. Of course, when you start forcibly shifting wealth from one group to another, you could also get something of a backlash, as Morales found out.

And the process in which all this happened is of course the same old: Correa gets majority in parliament, uses that to dissolve the other house and then has to come up with a new constitution, which is written in such a way that any government that follows but isn't left-wing populist basically has no choice but to start the whole process all over again. That means continuing political instability and a conception of democracy that is very different from those you might see in western Europe for example, where the constitution is a hands-off thing that isn't for the government of the day to play with.

It was a commentary. Do you expect me to argue against the constitution? Where's the point in doing that? I'll just get to hear the age-old defense of "the majority approved it" as if that added any value to it.

Firstly, Ecuador changes constitutions almost faster than governments. Every president comes in and changes the constitution to correspond to their particular personal goal. If anything, that just smacks of a complete lack of respect for the institution. So I'm not particularly overwhelmed, and anyone who thinks this is an actual lasting change will need a reality check.

The economic arguments against the constitution are obvious - they enshrine Correa's world view and policies, which so far hasn't helped the country grow, despite record oil prices and help from cashed up godfather governments. Expropriation and redistribution of land was also tried in a certain African country...let's hope the friends of Correa who will be getting this stuff know a little more about farming than the friends of Mugabe. Expect sluggish growth and high inflation to continue, followed by more and more outrageous demands from labour groups for higher wages to compensate for this inflation, followed by a big stand-off between public sector unions and the government. Eventually the people actually suffering from all these strikes are fed up and vote for someone to break the public sector and thus the power of these unions. That tends to be the pattern with centre-left nationalisation policies.

The indigenous part has some promise to it, and the policies on native populations are by far the best part of this current Bolivarian bunch of governments. Of course, when you start forcibly shifting wealth from one group to another, you could also get something of a backlash, as Morales found out.

And the process in which all this happened is of course the same old: Correa gets majority in parliament, uses that to dissolve the other house and then has to come up with a new constitution, which is written in such a way that any government that follows but isn't left-wing populist basically has no choice but to start the whole process all over again. That means continuing political instability and a conception of democracy that is very different from those you might see in western Europe for example, where the constitution is a hands-off thing that isn't for the government of the day to play with.

I'd like to see some evidence for the bolded part.

Did any of the previous constitutions have such popular support?

Do you have any evidence for these claims? You can post them in Spanish if you like.
I'm fine with English.

http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/09/25/business/LT-Ecuador-Brazil-Odebrecht.php

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/N23459832.htm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7632920.stm

And I said in beforehand that I wouldn't extend myself on the press issues, which I remember seeing in the papers way back in 2006/2007. The links go ahead, but they're not very good since this is old news already, and hard to find.

http://www.ifex.org/es/content/view/full/84682/index.html

http://www.presidencia.gov.ec/noticias.asp?noid=9498&hl=true

Last one isn't much a source but does show how active a hand he intends to play in the media. And I couldn't find the Oppenheimer article on Ecuadorian TV I read, but as I said, I didn't intend to debate these. Just wanted to bring Correa's character to the table.

Let's hope he ends up having to call the referendum a "victoria de mierda"

I'm fine with English.

I am aware of the dam issue. I was referring to your claim that Correa orchestrated it for the purposes of this referendum. That is not even suggested by your links.

And I said in beforehand that I wouldn't extend myself on the press issues, which I remember seeing in the papers way back in 2006/2007. The links go ahead, but they're not very good since this is old news already, and hard to find.

http://www.ifex.org/es/content/view/full/84682/index.html

http://www.presidencia.gov.ec/noticias.asp?noid=9498&hl=true

Last one isn't much a source but does show how active a hand he intends to play in the media. And I couldn't find the Oppenheimer article on Ecuadorian TV I read, but as I said, I didn't intend to debate these. Just wanted to bring Correa's character to the table.

So, we have one criticism from an NGO that represents free expression of journalists. While I support freedom of the press, I am also aware of the role media companies have played in latin America's struggles with democracies. In that respect, Correa's criticism that such companies have usually fought against progressive governments is true.

It is worth noting that he has not restricted the freedom of the press in any way. Instead, he has publicly denounced his opponents and sought to resolve the issue through open debate. If this is how he typically handles opposition from the press, then I think I like him even more. I can think of several leaders of developed nations that have even less patience with the press.

The second article merely says he will proceed with legal action against the people who wrote what was apparently offensive and libelious material. Oh no! He's letting an impartial court decide!

I'd like to see some evidence for the bolded part.
Western Europe, you could look at the winter of discontent in Britain, for example - it's probably the best documented case of what I mean. The French usually take longer to get really pissed off with people who make their lives miserable by striking, but even they eventually do. The strikes in the Venezuelan state oil company were a similar event, though it was early in Chávez' reign, so he was able to crush them and replace the unions with his own goons. Yay for labour rights, I suppose.

More generally, you'll find that the South American leftist governments also soon found themselves at odds with labour groups (and since they nationalised everything, those were public sector unions) about the fact that their policies rode these countries into the shit, and union members were suffering. Allende, shortly before Pinochet ended the discussion prematurely and violently, was facing massive strikes all across the country. Hell, in Ecuador itself Hurtado and Cevallo had to deal with the issue.

Did any of the previous constitutions have such popular support?
I'm not an expert on Ecuadorian history. Suffice to say that popular support is a fickle thing, and it becomes a problem whenever the government that happens to be loved by everyone today starts playing around with the rules of the game that are supposed to be above politicking. Correa didn't actually have both houses of parliament for example. That tells you that not everyone in the country is happy with him, and that opposition parties have a role to play. But this constitution is enshrining his party's ideology into the machinations of the state, and there is simply no way anyone should have a mandate for that.

Wait a new constitution can cancel our DEBT I am seeing potential here.

The strikes in the Venezuelan state oil company were a similar event, though it was early in Chávez' reign, so he was able to crush them and replace the unions with his own goons. Yay for labour rights, I suppose.

Do you have a link?

More generally, you'll find that the South American leftist governments also soon found themselves at odds with labour groups (and since they nationalised everything, those were public sector unions) about the fact that their policies rode these countries into the shit, and union members were suffering. Allende, shortly before Pinochet ended the discussion prematurely and violently, was facing massive strikes all across the country. Hell, in Ecuador itself Hurtado and Cevallo had to deal with the issue.

While the CIA documents are still partially classified, enough have been revealed to show that the strikes in Chile were financed by the Nixon administration (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/oct/11/pinochet.chile).

US involvement in Allende's downfall is widely known, but the extent of US aid to the coup plotters is not.

Chile was seen by the then president, Richard Nixon, and his secretary of state, Henry Kissinger, as a potential "second Cuba". They decided, in the words of one cabinet member, to "make the Chilean economy scream".

Strikes by lorry drivers financed by the US paralysed distribution, racheted up the sense of chaos and forced Chileans to queue for petrol, food and medical treatment.

As for Hurtado and Cevallo, do you have some sort of link that shows that the strikes wqere caused by 'leftist' economic policies like Correa's?

I'm not an expert on Ecuadorian history. Suffice to say that popular support is a fickle thing, and it becomes a problem whenever the government that happens to be loved by everyone today starts playing around with the rules of the game that are supposed to be above politicking. Correa didn't actually have both houses of parliament for example. That tells you that not everyone in the country is happy with him, and that opposition parties have a role to play. But this constitution is enshrining his party's ideology into the machinations of the state, and there is simply no way anyone should have a mandate for that.

You seem to be worrying about two different things here:

1. The belief that governments can change the constitution so easily.
2. The belief that Correa is enshrining his view in a document that can not be changed easily.

If the first one is true, there is no point worrying about the second, and vice versa.

Maybe it's evil and cruel and wrong of me...but I'm enjoying this little economic 'downturn' in the US, because the people usually crowing about how wickedly perfect US capitalism is, and how this model should be exported all over the world...well they just can't say that right now.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

Do you have a link?
http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=10242&Cr=Myanmar&Cr1=&Kw1=Venezuela&Kw2=&Kw3=
In Venezuela, 19,000 workers had been dismissed for trade union activities and one member of the Federation of Construction Workers had been murdered. The ILO Committee called on the government to institute an independent investigation into allegations of detention and torture.

While the CIA documents are still partially classified, enough have been revealed to show that the strikes in Chile were financed by the Nixon administration (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/1999/oct/11/pinochet.chile).
I'm sure they did. But that doesn't mean that the strikes were caused by the Americans - conditions in Chile were pretty atrocious for the little guy at that point, and if the financing did anything, it was simply to allow the strikers to hold out for longer without starving.

As for Hurtado and Cevallo, do you have some sort of link that shows that the strikes were caused by 'leftist' economic policies like Correa's?
Note that I never said they were caused by the policies themselves, but by their effects. High inflation in particular tends to eat away the wages people earn, which prompts the unions to try and do something about it. Most governments by then realise that throwing yet more worthless money at the problem isn't the answer, and you get a disagreement.

Here's one link:
http://www.atlapedia.com/online/countries/ecuador.htm
Hurtado introduced an austerity program to combat high inflation as well as the country's foreign debt, which resulted in large scale social unrest. In May 1988 Rodrigo Borja Cevallos was elected President, announcing emergency economic measures which led to general strikes organized by trade unions in Nov. 1988 and July 1989.

Oh, and the name was Cevallos (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rodrigo_Borja_Cevallos), with an s. Sorry.

If the first one is true, there is no point worrying about the second, and vice versa.
Realistically, a constitution is just a piece of paper. If you're the man of the moment, it can be changed relatively easily, especially so in new or fragile democracies like Ecuador.

But it should not be simply a piece of paper. The government is the bunch of crooks who momentarily get to impose their opinions on people. The state is the apparatus they use for that. A constitution outlines the way the state functions, and should be kept away from the government of the day. It defines the rules, and regardless of who wins the game right now, the rules stay and must be followed at all times. All constitutional changes worry me, but this one is obviously particularly bad because it basically enshrines one party's politics not into government, but the state. And that in turn is a step away from the Rechtsstaat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat) and towards some other system in which the state and the ruling party become one and the same, as we see in China for example. Not cool.

I have no doubt that the constitution won't be a huge obstacle for a different party if one follows Correa, it will simply be changed again. But that will only further weaken it as an institution and therefore weaken Ecuador's democracy.

Maybe it's evil and cruel and wrong of me...but I'm enjoying this little economic 'downturn' in the US, because the people usually crowing about how wickedly perfect US capitalism is, and how this model should be exported all over the world...well they just can't say that right now.
It's not evil or cruel, it's just inaccurate.

http://www.un.org/apps/news/storyAr.asp?NewsID=10242&Cr=Myanmar&Cr1=&Kw1=Venezuela&Kw2=&Kw3=

Do you have any information that shows that those 19000 workers were associated in any way with your previous claim that they were from the oil fields and were replaced with Chavez's men?

I'm sure they did. But that doesn't mean that the strikes were caused by the Americans - conditions in Chile were pretty atrocious for the little guy at that point, and if the financing did anything, it was simply to allow the strikers to hold out for longer without starving.

Not to mention that the economic conditions in Chile at the time were partially due to US involvement in the Chilean economy. I believe the exact words from Nixon to his underlings was to make "the economy scream".

Note that I never said they were caused by the policies themselves, but by their effects. High inflation in particular tends to eat away the wages people earn, which prompts the unions to try and do something about it. Most governments by then realise that throwing yet more worthless money at the problem isn't the answer, and you get a disagreement.

Here's one link:
http://www.atlapedia.com/online/countries/ecuador.htm

Your link shows that the strikes were caused by austerity measures, which were in turn caused by EDIT: Oops. Forgot to reply here and I have to go. Sorry. I'll finish this sentence later.

Realistically, a constitution is just a piece of paper. If you're the man of the moment, it can be changed relatively easily, especially so in new or fragile democracies like Ecuador.

But it should not be simply a piece of paper. The government is the bunch of crooks who momentarily get to impose their opinions on people. The state is the apparatus they use for that. A constitution outlines the way the state functions, and should be kept away from the government of the day. It defines the rules, and regardless of who wins the game right now, the rules stay and must be followed at all times. All constitutional changes worry me, but this one is obviously particularly bad because it basically enshrines one party's politics not into government, but the state. And that in turn is a step away from the Rechtsstaat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rechtsstaat) and towards some other system in which the state and the ruling party become one and the same, as we see in China for example. Not cool.

I have no doubt that the constitution won't be a huge obstacle for a different party if one follows Correa, it will simply be changed again. But that will only further weaken it as an institution and therefore weaken Ecuador's democracy.

Can you please show me how the current changes enshrine Correa's position into the constitution?

Do you have any information that shows that those 19000 workers were associated in any way with your previous claim that they were from the oil fields and were replaced with Chavez's men?
http://www.cfr.org/publication/12089/
The response to the strike—the dismissal of more than seventeen thousand PDVSA employees—resulted in a rapid drop in GDP between 2002 and 2003. In subsequent years, rising international oil prices helped the economy to recover.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/12/AR2008021202808.html
Venezuela also needs foreign investors and experts, oil specialists say. The country's oil output has dropped about 20 percent since PDVSA laid off thousands of engineers and managers in a strike about five years ago. Moreover, new frontiers in the Orinoco region, where oil is locked in rock similar to Canada's tar sands, require major investment and unwieldy technology. And PDVSA, straining to finance other government priorities, boosted its debt almost eightfold last year despite soaring oil prices.
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1689226,00.html
PDVSA runs many of the programs, and while that might sound more like Marx than Rockefeller, it "reflects our right to set globalization's terms in our people's favor for once," Ramírez has told TIME. Critics say it also means a hyperpoliticized PDVSA, in which Ramírez demands employee allegiance to Chávez and his Bolivarian revolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hugo_Ch%C3%A1vez#2002:_Coup_and_strike.2Flockout
A few months after the coup, on December 2, 2002, the Chávez presidency faced a two-month strike organized by the resistant PDVSA management who sought to force Chávez out of office by completely removing his access to the all-important government oil revenue. The strike/lockout, led by a coalition of labor unions, industrial magnates, and oil workers, sought to halt the activities of the PDVSA. As a result, Venezuela ceased exporting its former daily average of 2,800,000 barrels (450,000 m³) of oil and oil derivatives. Hydrocarbon shortages soon erupted throughout Venezuela, and long lines formed at petrol-filling stations. Gasoline imports were soon required. Chávez responded by firing PDVSA's anti-Chávez upper-echelon management and dismissing 18,000 PDVSA employees. He justified this by alleging their complicity in gross mismanagement and corruption in their handling of oil revenues, while opposition supporters of the fired workers stated that his actions were politically motivated.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0219/p07s01-woam.html
Mr. Chávez's opposition had taken control of the state-run oil company, Petroleos de Venezuela (PDVSA), on Dec. 2 and slowed production to a trickle. But Chávez consolidated power by firing as many as 12,000 of the company's 38,000 workers and calling in retirees as replacements.

[...]

The political struggle for control of PDVSA shows no signs of abating. Some strikers are refusing to return to work until Chávez agrees to early elections. Opponents accuse him of trying to turn the country into a Cuba-like socialist state and decimating the economy, which may contract by as much as 25 percent this year.

In the meantime, PDVSA is being split into two units, one for eastern Venezuela and one for western Venezuela, in order to avoid Caracas, where antigovernment sentiment runs high.
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/nov/25/business/fi-venoil25
Three years after President Hugo Chavez purged 20,000 employees from state-owned Petroleos de Venezuela, the oil giant’s production still hasn’t recovered, but many who became part of a global diaspora of Venezuelan talent slowly are putting their lives and careers back together.

Take oil engineer Lino Carrillo, who was general manager of new business development at Petroleos de Venezuela, known as PDVSA, when Chavez sacked half of the energy giant’s employees. For two years Carrillo had little success finding work in Caracas, and he burned through his savings. Now, the native of Maracaibo on Venezuela’s coast is playing a significant role in Suncor Energy Inc.’s project to extract crude from the frigid oil sands of northern Alberta, Canada.

[...]

PDVSA’s recovery from the devastating loss of personnel seems to have stalled. The mass firings – which included 75% of the company’s engineers, 70% of research scientists and 50% of its refinery employees – are an important factor in its failure to regain production levels of late 2002. That’s when a series of strikes began in response to Chavez’s efforts to bend the previously independent company to his political will, culminating in the mass layoffs in early 2003 and the decline of daily output to as low as 700,000 barrels.

[...]

Another factor: With Chavez’s grip on PDVSA bureaucracy complete, he uses its revenue to finance his populist war on poverty. He also has signed preferential oil deals aimed at shoring up friendly leftist governments and reducing Venezuela’s dependence on U.S. sales for its primary source of income. The cost to Venezuela of its beneficences has been estimated at $1.5 billion a year.

[...]

Suncor stood by Carrillo when Venezuela requested his extradition on espionage charges this year. Carrillo was one of a half-dozen people who led initial PDVSA strikes in 2002 and was singled out for prosecution. He narrowly escaped arrest on what he said were trumped-up charges immediately before his departure from Venezuela last year.

“They said we deliberately shut down production, which is a federal crime, when all we did was walk away,” Carrillo said.

Izarra, a 25-year PDVSA employee, left Venezuela for Saudi Arabia three months ago because, like Carrillo, as a consultant trying to drum up business after the firings, he was “radioactive,” or blacklisted from any contracts with PDVSA, far and away the country’s biggest employer.

Not to mention that the economic conditions in Chile at the time were partially due to US involvement in the Chilean economy. I believe the exact words from Nixon to his underlings was to make "the economy scream".
Hyperinflation is never the fault of outsiders. It's always the fault of monetising deficits, which is what Allende did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuskovic_plan

Your link shows that the strikes were caused by austerity measures, which were in turn caused by EDIT: Oops. Forgot to reply here and I have to go. Sorry. I'll finish this sentence later.
I think I know what you were going to say.

The government spends lots of money, nationalises stuff, drives away foreigners and eases monetary policy to these government institutions. As a result, inflation starts running rampant and government budgets are stretched to breaking point. When the pressure gets too bad, the government has to change tune, whether by choice or because it has to run to the IMF for help.

What follows is outrage among the unions and beneficiaries of these reckless policies, lots of social unrest and eventually the election of a more reasonable government.

Can you please show me how the current changes enshrine Correa's position into the constitution?
No, I think that's obvious enough for you to see yourself.

Do you have any information that shows that those 19000 workers were associated in any way with your previous claim that they were from the oil fields and were replaced with Chavez's men?

Gift-of-God, this is rather common knowledge. He fired almost 20 thousand workers, and replaced them with people linked to his political projects. Of course, the upper management didn't include so many workers, and no open competition for the vacants were made. The new workers were just appointed by the state in a rather short time, I would add. Those included high managers, engineers, technicians, and common workers of the fields. Coincidentally, each and every union leader or prominent member of the syndicates was expelled.

Only the rich and powerful are threatened by this movement

Thanks for the links about Chavez. I was unaware. I obviously lived under a rock for a while a few years ago. Oh well, a little bit of my ignorance is gone forever.

Hyperinflation is never the fault of outsiders. It's always the fault of monetising deficits, which is what Allende did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vuskovic_plan

Hyperinflation in Chile only occured after an economic blockade by the USA and a massive drop in the international price of copper, which was responsible for more than 50% of Chile's exports. Now, if inflation and hyperinflation is caused by more demand and less supply, would you say that a blockade that limits supply would affect hyperinflation? It seems logical. And an outsider could impose a blockade. That also seems logical.

I think I know what you were going to say.

The government spends lots of money, nationalises stuff, drives away foreigners and eases monetary policy to these government institutions. As a result, inflation starts running rampant and government budgets are stretched to breaking point. When the pressure gets too bad, the government has to change tune, whether by choice or because it has to run to the IMF for help.

What follows is outrage among the unions and beneficiaries of these reckless policies, lots of social unrest and eventually the election of a more reasonable government.

:rolleyes:

"Your link (and this one too (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ecuador#Return_to_democratic_rule_.281979-1984.29)) shows that the strikes were caused by austerity measures, which were in turn caused by"...the sudden end of the petroleum boom, a massive debt left over from the military dictatorships, and drastic climactic changes caused by El Niño. And these austerity measures were brought in to curry favour with the IMF, not the most leftist institution. So the strikes that happened under Hurtado were definitely not a result of leftist economic policies or even their effects, as those policies are nowhere in the causative chain of events that led to the strikes.

No, I think that's obvious enough for you to see yourself.

Considering that I actually read several parts of the constitution, including the parts where it describes the powers of the executive, and I didn't see it, I would say that it was not obvious. If you want, you can tell me which part of Correa's platform is included in the new constitution, and I'll try to find it in Spanish.

In before sadistic morons calling for the US to force a regime change with lots of torture because they disagree with any government that doesn't suck Ayn Rand's proverbial junk.

Maybe it's evil and cruel and wrong of me...but I'm enjoying this little economic 'downturn' in the US, because the people usually crowing about how wickedly perfect US capitalism is, and how this model should be exported all over the world...well they just can't say that right now.

MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!

You only say this because you're safely in Gift-of-God's pants.

Also, since America's economic model isn't working and some Americans think America has the right to invade and install puppet regimes because other countries don't have "working" economic models...

Guess where I'm going with this. By the logic of a few idiots, I now get to treat Americans as if they were second-class people that voted for the wrong guy and ergo should have a dictatorship forced upon them to conform to my views of how their economy should be! Isn't that delightful?

To all morons that think Henry Kissinger should be in any way respected for raping South America: The shoe is now on the other foot. Come and get some!

You only say this because you're safely in Gift-of-God's pants. More like, he has a handy person in his pants who can hunt when the whole economy goes boom and everyone else is fighting over packets of instant noodles. *nods*

Keheeheh...I'm picturing hunting from a bicycle :D


Guess where I'm going with this. By the logic of a few idiots, I now get to treat Americans as if they were second-class people that voted for the wrong guy and ergo should have a dictatorship forced upon them to conform to my views of how their economy should be! Isn't that delightful?
Exactamente, amigo mio.

In before sadistic morons calling for the US to force a regime change with lots of torture because they disagree with any government that doesn't suck Ayn Rand's proverbial junk.

Funny you even equate the US government and its economy with anything to do with what Ayn Rand said.

Funny you even equate the US government and its economy with anything to do with what Ayn Rand said.

Oh, I don't, but I think you'll agree that the aforementioned morons think anything that remotely resembles state regulation of economy is communism, much like ms. Rand seemed to believe.

Oh, I don't, but I think you'll agree that the aforementioned morons think anything that remotely resembles state regulation of economy is communism, much like ms. Rand seemed to believe.

I doubt you'll find anyone like that on NSG.

I doubt you'll find anyone like that on NSG.

*Puts on cheerleading gear. Male, short, stocky, with it on, but meh.*

Give me a T!
Give me an A!
Give me an I!

What do you get?

*Puts on cheerleading gear. Male, short, stocky, with it on, but meh.*

Give me a T!
Give me an A!
Give me an I!

What do you get?

I've never seen him argue that 'neo-liberal' (shudders at meaningless term) economics should be forcefully exported to every country.

I've never seen him argue that 'neo-liberal' (shudders at meaningless term) economics should be forcefully exported to every country.

You do know that he's enough of an extremist to think that the US-backed coups in South America were good things, right?

You do know that he's enough of an extremist to think that the US-backed coups in South America were good things, right?

But he doesn't know economic theory from the back of his hand, and I don't think I've ever heard him talk about Ayn Rand.

You do know that he's enough of an extremist to think that the US-backed coups in South America were good things, right?

Well if he did, I doubt he supported them for 'neo-liberal' purposes, since I don't remember him ever seeing him debate economics or have any passion for any particular economic ideology. But whatever, I don't want to have a debate about TAI tbh.

Well if he did, I doubt he supported them for 'neo-liberal' purposes, since I don't remember him ever seeing him debate economics or have any passion for any particular economic ideology. But whatever, I don't want to have a debate about TAI tbh.

Well, I think he supported them to quell his less orthodox urges, really, but that's neither a here nor a there. Going towards a more general approach now: The point is, now that the US is mismanaging its economy, I get to argue that applying the stupid logic of the morons that supported the coups here in South America, it is now the US's turn to be thus "helped" by other countries.

I don't agree with this notion, to be sure, but that's because I know better than to be enough of a sadistic, psychopatic idiot to think the coups here in SA were good things.

But he doesn't know economic theory from the back of his hand, and I don't think I've ever heard him talk about Ayn Rand.

Very well. Regardless, my point remains: I now get to apply to the US the same logic that the sadistic idiots (it takes being one to support the coups in SA) that supported the coups here applied.

Isn't that fun?

Well, I think he supported them to quell his less orthodox urges, really, but that's neither a here nor a there. Going towards a more general approach now: The point is, now that the US is mismanaging its economy, I get to argue that applying the stupid logic of the morons that supported the coups here in South America, it is now the US's turn to be thus "helped" by other countries.


But how broad are you going with these morons who think there should be economic change in other countries? I argue that if the world removes most protectionism (especially the west), then there will be a good manufacturing and agricultural growth, which is currently being hampered by protectionism. Am I one of those morons? Of course I don't think we should force countries to do this, so is it only moronic when you think countries should be forced by other countries to change in this way?

Am I one of those morons?

No.

Of course I don't think we should force countries to do this,

You aren't a moron precisely because of this and because you don't think the coups in SA were good/necessary/ethical.

so is it only moronic when you think countries should be forced by other countries to change in this way?

Yes.

(Though you may or not be a moron for other reasons, I don't know you that well. My assertion was that favoring foreign-sponsored coups in SA makes you a moron, not that opposing them prevents you from being one.)

-snip-

Ok, that was pretty easy though, but consider this-

Lets say there is a power struggle in a country, one faction fighting for power supports removal of protectionism, the other faction doesn't. If I were to support the first faction over the second, is that bad? What if I further supported people from other countries funding the first faction? (Note, I'm not trying to compare this to any situation in south America, not yet anyway).

Ok, that was pretty easy though, but consider this-

Lets say there is a power struggle in a country, one faction fighting for power supports removal of protectionism, the other faction doesn't. If I were to support the first faction over the second, is that bad? What if I further supported people from other countries funding the first faction? (Note, I'm not trying to compare this to any situation in south America, not yet anyway).

In this case, either support the one supported by the people from the country AND that doesn't seem intent on creating a dictatorship, or simply stay out of it. Self-determination must be paramount.

In this case, either support the one supported by the people from the country AND that doesn't seem intent on creating a dictatorship, or simply stay out of it. Self-determination must be paramount.

But you don't find the importance of self-determination absolute, since if the most popular faction wanted to set up a dictatorship, it would be bad to support it right?

But you don't find the importance of self-determination absolute, since if the most popular faction wanted to set up a dictatorship, it would be bad to support it right?

Because a dictatorship runs counter to the notion of self-determination. Why I said "stay out of it" in case most people want it - you can't involve yourself AND do the right thing in this case.

Because a dictatorship runs counter to the notion of self-determination.

Does it? It runs counter to democracy (in the sense of it being a system of government) certainly, but self-determination is a bit of an ambiguous word, since there is no reason the people can't determine that a dictatorship is best for the country.

Does it? It runs counter to democracy (in the sense of it being a system of government) certainly, but self-determination is a bit of an ambiguous word, since there is no reason the people can't determine that a dictatorship is best for the country.

Self-determination includes the one of the individuals. A tyranny by majority still runs counter to it.

Self-determination includes the one of the individuals. A tyranny by majority still runs counter to it.

Then you're screwed whatever faction or type of government the people support.

Then you're screwed whatever faction or type of government the people support.

If you get involved, in this scenario, you are. If most people want a democratic government, you have the right to help them (by cooperation, not by military actions which violate sovereignty), but if most people do not want one, this majority must be left on its own.

Lets say there is a power struggle in a country, one faction fighting for power supports removal of protectionism, the other faction doesn't. If I were to support the first faction over the second, is that bad? What if I further supported people from other countries funding the first faction? (Note, I'm not trying to compare this to any situation in south America, not yet anyway).

For any foreign government or agency to intervene in any way would be bad. There is very little chance of anyone doing any good by intervening, and a much higher chance that you of making things worse.

For any foreign government or agency to intervene in any way would be bad. There is very little chance of anyone doing any good by intervening, and a much higher chance that you of making things worse.

You read Quino for a reason. :)

(Your avatar is his most famous character)

You read Quino for a reason. :)

(Your avatar is his most famous character)

Mafalda is the bomb. I want to be her when I grow little.

Hyperinflation in Chile only occured after an economic blockade by the USA and a massive drop in the international price of copper, which was responsible for more than 50% of Chile's exports. Now, if inflation and hyperinflation is caused by more demand and less supply, would you say that a blockade that limits supply would affect hyperinflation?
So Chile's exports drop, as a result economic growth slows down. How does that cause inflation? I'd think a bigger reason for inflation to pick up would be a reduction or slower growth in productive capacity because he was kicking out the people most likely to have the money and the motive to invest in new machinery, factories and so on.

Hyperinflation in particular though is always a monetary phenomenon. There has never been a case of it happening without the government printing money. In Chile's case, this also makes sense - the Chilean government was spending money with both hands, while revenue from taxes and the state-owned firms was dropping. To make up for the shortfall, Allende switched on the printing presses, rather than just live within his means, or at least borrowing money.

That's the sort of thing I'm ranting against when I talk about economic laws and (usually left-wing) populist governments running places into the ground by thinking state power somehow stands above that sort of thing.

So the strikes that happened under Hurtado were definitely not a result of leftist economic policies or even their effects, as those policies are nowhere in the causative chain of events that led to the strikes.
Fair enough, as I said I'm not an expert on Ecuador's history. But I think the central point I was making still stands - left-wing politics tends to grow the public sector, and therefore public sector trade unions (as well as generally being favourable to private sector unions as well). Sooner or later disagreements about policy (whether brought about by failing policies or outside influences) leads to a breakdown in relations and a power struggle that can seriously disrupt a nation. And since unions can't govern, it must ultimately them who lose, whether because someone votes in a Maggie Thatcher, or because someone pulls a Pinochet.

Governments that don't try to politicise industrial relations and don't favour one group over another are less likely to suffer the same fate.

Considering that I actually read several parts of the constitution, including the parts where it describes the powers of the executive, and I didn't see it, I would say that it was not obvious. If you want, you can tell me which part of Correa's platform is included in the new constitution, and I'll try to find it in Spanish.
Firstly you could of course look at the way we got here in the first place (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rafael_Correa#Constituent_Assembly), which is politicking if I've ever seen it. But that's an aside, I'm going by your own OP here.

Tightening controls of vital industries and reducing monopolies
Declaring some foreign loans illegitimate
Expropriating and redistributing idle farm land
Allowing the president to stand for a second four-year term in office
Giving free health care for older citizens
Allowing civil marriage for gay partners

Now, we can say that 4 and 6 are general points that would be shared by any government, right? Points 1, 2, 3 and 5 are straight agenda. Even letting 5 be, the first three are radical left-wing agenda.

I also liked this quote of his...
http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/2008/06/26/quote-of-the-day/
“If that’s democracy, then I’m not a democrat.”

-Rafael Correa, president of Ecuador, stating his refusal to allow the opposition to participate in the debate for a new constitution in his country [in Spanish].