 |
|
|
Introducing her book
"I am my father's daughter"
 |
|
|
|
| ECUADOR'S REVOLVING PRESIDENTIAL DOOR |
| Written by Maria Elena Salinas |
| Monday, May 02 2005 |
| |
| Just a couple of days after the president of Ecuador Lucio Gutierrez was deposed, it was business as usual in the South American country. Vice President Alfredo Palacios took over as the new head of state, and maintenance workers cleaned up the streets in the capital city of Quito, littered after nine days of violent protests that preceded Gutierrez's downfall.
If it seems like Ecuadorians are accustomed to political turmoil, it's because they are. Ecuador has had 10 presidents in the past 10 years. In that same period, three presidents have been toppled by the military or political opponents.
Gutierrez, a former colonel in the Ecuadorian army, was ousted by a majority vote in Congress for allegedly abandoning his presidential duties when protests against him were escalating. President Jamil Mahuad was thrown out of office in 2000 during a revolt by military officers who accused him of ruining the country by dollarizing the economy and protecting corrupt bankers. And in 1997, President Abdala Bucaram was deposed for mental incompetence only six months after being elected, and was later accused of corruption.
I happened to be covering the story that infamous weekend, when there were three presidents in three days. The presidential wannabes were: Bucaram, who claimed to be the legitimate head of state, rejecting Congress' decision to throw him out of office; his vice-president, Rosalia Arteaga, who believed the law favored her right to be the interim president; and the head of Congress, Fabian Alarcon, who insisted that the constitution dictated that he claim the honor.
During a one-on-one interview, I asked Bucaram about his ouster for mental incapacity, and he replied, "If I am mentally incompetent, then everyone in this country is crazy." Actually, the flamboyant Bucaram, who liked to call himself "el loco" -- the "crazy one" -- was not only ousted because of his peculiar habit of singing and telling jokes while conducting official business, but because his economic policies did not go over well with either the poor he claimed to champion for, or the elite.
Before going into exile in Panama, Bucaram vowed to return and run for president. "I will win, and if I am ousted again, I will run again," he told me. "I will be president six times, because I'm young and strong and have a lot of vitality." And he kept his word, or he at least tried to. Claiming to be crazier than ever, Bucaram went back to Ecuador in early April and was greeted by thousands of supporters at a rally in his home state of Guayaquil.
But his return angered many Ecuadorians, who accused President Gutierrez of manipulating the justice system. Gutierrez, who had served as military attaché during Bucaram's brief term in office, removed the Supreme Court and named new judges. His decision to overhaul the Supreme Court was seen by protesters as an illegal attempt to amass power. One of the court's first decisions was to remove corruption charges against Bucaram, allowing for his return. After Gutierrez was deposed, Bucaram was forced once again to return to exile.
Both Bucaram and Gutierrez reached the presidency on a populist platform of working for the nation's poor and denouncing previous corrupt governments. And both ended up being linked to corruption and angering the poor by applying unpopular economic-austerity measures.
In an oil-rich country where poverty hovers around 65 percent, a handful of powerful families control its destiny, and volatility is the rule rather than the exception, people are no longer willing to tolerate the corrupt, selfish practices of politicians.
Ecuador, like several of its neighbors in Latin America, is caught in a vicious circle of poverty, corruption and political incompetence. Those countries will only see stability when they have political leaders who will bring them out of their national quagmire by putting the basic social needs of the people before their own political goals and personal interests. |
|
|
