Gutiérrez 1

Nicolás Gutiérrez

Professor Matthew Dolloff

Writing and Rhetoric

28 February 2019

The Legacy of Rafael Correa`s Government

In this paper, I intend to argue about the perception of people of the impact of

the legacy left in Ecuador by the former government of Rafael Correa in terms of

bureaucracy, infrastructure, and indebtedness. I will compare and contrast the opinions

of four interviewees, to obtain a general assessment of how Ecuadorians live today with

the consequences of that past government. Three of these interviewees, Jovita Jiménez,

Mateo Pazmiño, and Juan Fernando Flores, are USFQ students who study Advertising,

Finance, and Law respectively; they have lived all their years of school under the

Correa regime, so they have interesting opinions about the legacy. The last interviewee

is Wilfrido Lucero, a former president of the National Congress, who has seen several

governments pass and has the experience to give his point of view from retirement, on

how he sees the consequences of the aforementioned legacy. It is important to say that

both the students and the last interviewee share several elements of each other`s

opinion, which I observed and analyzed.

First, I have always believed that the role of a government is to serve its citizens

unconditionally, always protecting the rights, opportunities, and responsibilities of all.

For this reason, when I asked Mateo about his opinion of the legacy left by the

government of Rafael Correa, he told me that "not everything that the government left

us was wrong, because thanks to the infrastructure investment that was made, now the

country is better connected, there are more schools and hospitals.”[CITATION Mat19 \l

3082 ] .Therefore, in discussion of what reasons there are to consider the legacy of
Gutiérrez 2

Rafael's government as either good or bad, Jovita agrees that not everything left by the

previous government was bad, but adds that all the good that was achieved and left in

the country was overshadowed by the coming to light of several irregularities of the

previous government. On the other hand, Wilfrido mentions that there is no positive

aspect to rescue from the legacy of the previous government, for that he says "in what

way, we as Ecuadorians can feel some kind of empathy from the previous

government ... They left us without any kind of remorse, totally ruined from every

aspect"[ CITATION Luc19 \l 3082 ]. For that, my point of view is that Wilfrido maintains

a definite point of determination against the legacy of the previous government because

he is member of a civil group called Cauce Democrátrico, was publicly criticized by

Rafael Correa; so, the point of view of Wilfrido is biased against the previous

government. On the other hand, Juan Fernando contends that the legacy of the previous

government is the best and that all bad aspects that could appear in this legacy, is

because of people who betrayed the “revolución ciudadana”, promoted by the previous

government. He even went so far as to say that "the previous government was the best

we had in years, it is the one that gave us the political, economic and social stability that

we needed” [CITATION Flo19 \l 3082 ]. What Juan Fernando is saying is that what we

are now as a country is thanks to the actions of the former government.

Although Mateo, Jovita, and Juan Fernando`s opinion may seem trivial, it is in

fact crucial in terms of today’s concern over how the youth of Ecuador, is perceiving

what was left by the previous government; because they are the ones who in the long

term will have to face the legacy of Correa`s government. For that reason, it is

important to point one of the consequences, the youth of Ecuador will face; for that

when it comes to the topic of the indebtedness that the former government, most of us

will readily agree that all the governments, including the Ecuadorian one, have to ask
Gutiérrez 3

for money loans to fulfill their citizen’s needs. Where this agreement usually flourishes

in Ecuador, however, is on the question of: Until what point is it good for the

Ecuadorian government to get into debt? Moreover, with the question: What do you

think that nowadays each Ecuadorian has a debt of over 3000 dollars since birth?

Whereas some people like Mateo and Juan Fernando are convinced that the

indebtedness that the former government for 65 billion dollars was completely

necessary to achieve the development of the country. Others like Jovita and Wilfrido

maintain that the level of indebtedness of Correa`s government was completely

unacceptable; moreover Jovita explicitly says that: “ Even though governments have the

responsibility to seek the wealth being of their citizens, it never go through my mind

that Correa`s government was capable of having that level of indebtedness and at the

same time spend so much money it is inconceivable. For that, Juan Fernando

emphasizes that the fact that every Ecuadorian since he was born owns that debt is a

collateral damage that with any government would happen. For that reason, I think that

Juan Fernando is making a mistake because he is seeing the picture of the immediate

benefit that this indebtedness generated us as a country, but he is not realizing that he,

his children and probably his grandchildren will see this situation of the indebtedness of

the previous government, becomes more serious. But at that point of collateral damage,

is where Mateo and Wilfrido disagree with Juan Fernando, because although Mateo said

that such indebtedness is justified for the development of the country, he does share like

Wilfrido, the fact that this indebtedness was done irresponsibly, having been negotiated

against the economic interests of the country.

Mateo`s assertion that the indebtedness of the former government was necessary

to the development of the country, is contradicted by his claim that he does not share

how that indebtedness was negotiated; for that his contradiction relies on the logic idea
Gutiérrez 4

that the end must no justify the means, especially for a government. Having said that, it

is important to point out how another aspect of the legacy of the former government like

the bureaucracy created by the former government, are perceived by the interviewees.

According to Jovita, Mateo, and Wilfrido, when they were asked on how they perceive

the way the bureaucracy that former government have had an impact on the

development and operativity of Ecuador, they widely agreed that there was no need for

the interest of Ecuador, to create that amount of bureaucracy due to the amount of

expenditure that involved and that involves covering the current expenditure that

generates the bureaucracy in Ecuador. In consequence Wilfrido, recognizes that: "the

effort of the actual government of Moreno to reduce the bureaucracy in the country is

applauded, because by means of the reduction of ministries and secretaries the public

expense is relieved little by little"[ CITATION Luc19 \l 3082 ]. What Wilfrido tries to

emphasize is that as a country, step by step we are adjusting to the reality that we did

not needed so many ministries and that Ecuador, did not have nor has, the financial

ability to maintain such amount of bureaucracy. However, what Wilfrido does not take

into account is that not only must the bureaucracy be reduced in terms of reducing

ministries and public entities, but also reducing legal or business procedures, which take

both Ecuadorians and foreigners a lot of time and resources, resulting in the lack of

economic operativity. In that lead Jovita emphasizes that “ Ecuador as a country in

development, cannot afford to have a volume of bureaucracy with slow and inefficient

procedures, that contract or stop the development of new investments or new

entrepreneurships that could bring better things to our country…” [ CITATION Jim19 \l

3082 ]; her point is that we as Ecuadorians have to promote governments that ensure

that the constant flow of money, commerce, information and people allows us to

become a first world country that is able to control any type of corruption.
Gutiérrez 5

On the other hand, Juan Fernando sustains that “the previous government

created a financial support mechanism for the peasants that no other government did, I

think for example the peasant social security that you cannot end with that and much

more, from one day to the another” [CITATION Flo19 \l 3082 ]. With that he is trying to

say that the actions of the actual government of reducing the bureaucracy created by

Correa`s government, throws everything that was accomplished to the trash; he also

tried to explain how many of the needs Ecuadorians have that were fulfilled by the

former government by creating that volume of bureaucracy.

In conclusion, it is clear that for those who are in total or partial disagreement

with the government of Correa as Jovita, Mateo, or Wilfrido recognize that as a society,

mistakes were made, and a feeling of helplessness and shame was perceived because of

not doing something when it was necessary. But at the same time, I perceived a feeling

of hope that things will improve in the future. It is also clear that even those who are

supporters of the previous government like Juan Fernando, recognize very deeply that

the government of Correa made many things the wrong way. This situation of a

government returning to leave Ecuador plunged into corruption, debt and other

problems should teach us to choose our authorities in a better way; not falling into

political diatribes, in addition to becoming a society more aware of anyone that as part

of the government or the society in general, tries in any way to fulfill their personal

interests, at the expense of Ecuadorians, by turning Ecuador into a corrupt country,

incapable of developing.

Bibliography:

Pazmiño, Mateo. Personal Interview Nicolás Gutiérrez. 2019.

Gutiérrez 6

Lucero, Wilfrido. Personal Interview Nicolás Gutierrez. 2019.

Flores, Juan Fernando. Personal Interview Nicolás Gutiérrez. 2019.

Jiménez, Jovita. Personal Interview Nicolás Gutiérrez. 2019.