Gutiérrez 1

Nicolás Gutiérrez Lucero

Professor Matthew Dolloff

Writing and Rhetoric

18 March 2019

The Legacy of Rafael Correa`s Government

In this paper, I intend to argue about the correlation between neopopulism and

the cult of Correa`s personality in the legacy his government left in Ecuador. For that.

For the purpose of the analysis of this paper, I will take in consideration the analysis and

perception of different authors in sources such as books and research papers, about the

elements that marked the construction of the legacy of the Government of Correa and

how Ecuador faces this legacy today; this authors contribute their knowledge in the

topic, to give a concrete analysis of what led Correa to manage the country the way he

did. Together with the opinions of these authors, it is important for this paper to relate

their opinions, with the ones given by the interviewees in the previous paper; the main

objective of comparing and contrasting the opinions between the authors and the

interviewees, is to give a better value to what was said by the authors and finally

obtaining an specific idea that truly represents what is the legacy of Correa`s

government to Ecuadorians.

First, the neopopulism character that guide Correa`s government led him to

leave disastrous consequences in Ecuador. Moreover, I considered that that

neopopulism as the guide of a country’s fate is fatal for this country`s interest, because

it paints itself as a total democracy of peace and respect, but in the reality, it is a wolf in

a sheep`s clothing. For that since the end of the last government, that in order to give an

opinion that portrays the legacy of Correa's government, the whole picture must be seen,

not biased to give an extreme option. However, that extreme opinions These extremist
Gutiérrez 2

opinions can allow us to observe what elements lead Rafael Correa to handle the State

in the way he did, marking his legacy. In that line, it is important to present the idea that

“any legislation designed to guarantee better information in private media was going to

raise strong criticism among the defenders of large companies”[CITATION Ser16 \p

411 \l 3082 ]. Is in this point, were I disagree with Serrano because the legislation to

“guarantee” better quality of information in Ecuador, was used by Correa`s government

to create the SUPERCOM an entity that basically had at that time the objective to

impose sanctions among tv channel channels, radios or journalists that said anything

that in the eyes of the government was against what they considered “honest media”. In

this point it is important to mention that the neopopulist character of the Rafael

government painted his management as a savior and plugged the deficiencies of

Ecuador, supposedly created by the wealthiest people. However, this guarantee of rights

that was promulgated in the neopoulism of Correa, had a flaw that is described by

Verdesoto, who among other things points out that neopopulism has its weakest link is

the management that hides under a mediocre bureaucracy without truly prepared

personnel, together with an abundance of resources that in a short time is going to

end[CITATION Ver14 \p 514 \l 3082 ]. With this, it can be added what Jovita Jimenez

said in the interview, related to the management of public resources by the government

of Correa and is that “it never goes 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”[ CITATION Jim19 \l 3082 ]. For this reason, Jovita's opinion is

aligned in a certain way with what was said by Verdesosto and opposes to what Serrano

said, because it gives meaning to that the fact that in a developing country like Ecuador,

with a neopopulist model in the time of Rafael, it was necessary to save that resources

to face the future. Likewise, it is worth mentioning that the Correa government wrongly
Gutiérrez 3

used these valuable resources for the country, in legitimizing an obese bureaucracy, by

creating for example worthless entities like the SUPERCOM or SENAIN, form which

both the poor and rich people are paying for its consequences.

Moreover, it is important to see the fact that if Correa and his government found

a country “ruled” in some way by large companies as Serrano tries say and with so

many problems, for what reason did Correa did not seek for a change for the good of all

Ecuadorians. And a consequence of not looking for a solution for those problems and on

the contrary, using them as a mechanism of propaganda to gain credibility; is that in the

Correa`s government, in my opinion, the basic problems of the country were not treated

in their proper dimension, because if they had been treated correctly, that government

would have been left without an instrument of propaganda that Correa and his

government were the ones only capable of running Ecuador. Therefore, two authors

pointed out that "The conjoining of the plebiscitary presidency and the permanent

campaign is problematic for democratic politics, especially in countries and suffering

from fragile institutions and weak civil societies"[CITATION Con08 \p 282 \l 3082 ].

And it is those weak social structures that these authors mention that in their time did

not stop bluntly the development of public infrastructures, which persisted as the best of

the whole history of the country; but that by the contractor brought to his back cases of

corruption and overpricing that today we complain about suffering the consequences,

but that our inoperativeness as a country allowed the patriotic campaign that "la patria

ya es de todos", to make us believe that in effect we had the destiny of the nation in our

hands and that the benefits of it were within our reach, although in reality we are only

left with the memory of that illusion that today has a millionaire cost that would be paid

by future generations. For example, in the economic plane that utopian idea that the

citizen revolution would solve all the problems of Ecuador, fell apart because as Vera
Gutiérrez 4

and Llanos mention, the difficult economic situation in which the Correa government

left the country: " It has highlighted the contradictions of the economic model that,

although it has significantly reduced poverty and inequality, has maintained its

dependence on exports of raw materials "[CITATION Ver16 \p 170 \l 3082 ] . With that it

is observed that both authors acknowledge a certain kind of good that the government of

Correa possibly left as a legacy; likewise, in the interview Jovita Jiménez said 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”[ CITATION Jim19 \l 3082 ] So

the idea is reflected with what has been said by Vera, Llanos and Jovita is that in the

desperation for approval, resources were wasted in pretending to solve national

problems in the short term, and in the same time with the wasting of resources, it got

reassured that Ecuador was, is and will be thanks to the former government a country

that continues to depend in exporting raw material for later on importing finished

products produced with Ecuadorian raw materials. And, as I see the future it will take

more than 30 or 50 years for this situation to change; because the economic benefits that

Correa`s government had would not repeat ever again.

Furthermore, the obsessive cult of personality of Correa`s persona, might

explain why Ecuadorians allowed him to leave the country in the situation that it is

today; moreover, that cult of personality might also explain why nowadays in every

media possible, every day, people talk about Correa`s government in a good or a bad

way. In that lead, what the plebiscitary presidency of Correa tried and succeeded in

appealing to the deepest feelings of Ecuadorians and turning them into the governments

favor; for that reason it can be explained why Juan Fernando in the interview said 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 ]. But
Gutiérrez 5

this is where I totally reject Juan Fernando’s opinion, due to the fact that social,

economic, and political stability does not mean does not mean to indebt your people in

billions of dollars to pretend that investment is made in the "development" of the

country, only with the objective of that money, to shield an obese and corrupt State.

Also, in this point it is important to empathizes an idea about how the obsessive cult of

personality stopped people for seeing the reality behind Correa`s government; for that,

Carlos de la Torre explained that situation with an analogy: “In the apocalypse the

Messiah will lead the chosen people to the millennium that will end the injustices of

savage capitalism and its serfs of the partycracy and the corrupt press”[CITATION

del13 \p 30 \l 3082 ]. And what is essential about this analogy is that it represent the

core of what maintained alive the Correa`s regime for over ten years. He painted

himself as the savior of the savior of the debris and the poor. For the same reason as

Juan Fernando's opinion, shown above, Verdesoto's opinion that these societies and

their leaders have had to face an important dilemma that obliged them to establish

priorities[ CITATION Ver14 \l 3082 ], does not fit again with the reality. In addition, it

leads us to question the moral integrity of the socio-political socio-theoreticians, as well

as to question how the Ecuadorians did not learn from the political disasters of the past

such as Bucaram, Lucio or Mahuad. And in consequence, we fell into another political

disaster, whose protagonist in Belgium, observes as opponents and supporters continue

to talk about him. So, it is cleared that He recorded in the minds of the majority that

small mentality, that we as Ecuadorians could not do anything on our own, and that

always has to appear that political figure that should give us things easily and show us

the way to progress.

In conclusion, the fact that the Correa era is considered the most important

milestone in Ecuadorian history is palpable because it allowed us to understand the

Gutiérrez 6

scope of shame and waste, of a State dependent on blind approval of a people that was

not able to truly take the reins of your own country. Moreover, the opinion of the

experts allowed to show clearly how the legacy of Correa, reached all levels of society,

basing their survival not only on that blind support of people, but also on political

philosophies destined to lie and deceive the citizens, as is the case of neopopulism.

Therefore, we need to rebuild our bases and political beliefs to choose authorities that

really work for the general good, promoting and repeating not only rights but also

responsibilities, so that all Ecuadorians do not enter but learn from an unprecedented

legacy that we will live it to suffer its consequences for a long time.

Works cited:

Conaghan, Catherine y Carlos de la Torre. The Permanent Campaign of Rafael Correa:

Making Ecuador’s Plebiscitary Presidency . Press/Politics. Quito: Sage
Publications, 2008.
de la Torre , Carlos. "El Tecnopopulismo de Rafael Correa ¿Es compatible el carisma
con la tecnocracia?" Research Paper. 2013.

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

Jiménez, Jovita. Personal Interview Nicolás Gutiérrez. 2019.

Serrano, Pascual. Medios democráticos : una revolución pendiente en la comunicación.

Madrid: Foca, 2016.
Verdesoto , Luis. Los actores y la producción de la democracia y la política en Ecuador
1979-2011 . Quito: Editorial Universitaria Abya-Yala, 2014.
Vera, Sofia y Santiago Llanos. «Ecuador: La democracia después de nueve años de La
“revolución ciudadana” de Rafael Correa.» Revista de Ciencia Politica de
FLACSO (2016): 145-175.
Gutiérrez 7