Dr. Yasmin Calmet

Amidst turbulent Latin American politics and concerns about where the region is headed, many have raised questions about the current political landscape in Ecuador. In particular, some have wondered whether Ecuadorians’ approval of security measures in the 21 April referendum could transform the country into another El Salvador.To answer this question, it is helpful to examine the broader historical and political context in Ecuador. For years, governments have failed to address the country’s most significant challenges, and there have been frequent corruption and drug trafficking allegations involving politicians and judges. Thisled to a security crisis fueled by the growth of violence by criminal factions. According to 2023 data from Statista, crime rates in Ecuador have increased exponentially since 2016. For example, the homicide rate per 100,000 inhabitants has jumped almost 300 percent in three years from 5.8 in 2019 to 26.7 in 2022. This sharp increase in homicide rates could also be the result of anti-drug policies elsewhere in Latin America, which have pushed major Mexican and Colombian cartels to begin operating in Ecuador.The referendum was therefore held amidst extreme public insecurity and fear, and should be seen as a belated but predictable governmental response to address public security issues. In societies living under constant fear, people tend to vote for measures that promise security and preservation of life. In these contexts, governments are confident that their proposals will be accepted without much questioning.In Ecuador, the Noboa government put eleven questions to a public referendum, nine of which were related to security. These nine measures will militarize public security and draw upon the armed forces as necessary for protecting the government and nation and maintaining public order. In addition to addressing the country’s security problems, these proposals seek to solidify the government’s popularity and legitimacy through exemplary actions to ensure the safety of the population.Two crucial points among these measures have generated significant concern and deserve close attention. First, the referendum supported changes to the constitution that would allow the armed forces to take control of public security. This means that the government has acknowledged it lacks sufficient political strength to enforce public order using police forces. Instead, the Ecuadorian government has allowed the use of extreme force for domestic security objectives, including lethal force. The militarization of public security aims to maintain strict control over the population using specific tactics, &nbsp;but this does not guarantee that the use of force and mechanisms of surveillance and control will be deployed appropriately.In light of Latin American history in countries such as Ecuador, it is important to note that militarizing security gives the government greater power and political influence. This enables the government to use the armed forces for its own political benefit, as has previously been the case in Peru under the Fujimori government (1990-2000); Colombia under Uribe (2002-2010), Santos (2010-2018), and Duque (2018-2022); and in El Salvador today under the Bukele government. The armed forces can often provide a false sense of security by targeting specific social groups, such as socioeconomically marginalized populations and people of color. This exacerbates violence, prejudice, and social hierarchies and fails to provide effective solutions through public policy or inclusion programs. Such short-term security measures can be popular for promising immediate solutions to chronic problems left over from previous governments, but they do not address structural issues or promote coherent policies that could overcome social exclusion and improve governance.The second crucial point that arose in the 21 April referendum is the issue of defining terrorism. In the absence of specific parameters for this concept, Noboa has set a dangerous precedent for the state to accuse any individual of terrorism, including those protesting against government policies. In societies in which security measures often result in further entrenching authoritarian governance, this ambiguity of terminology can result in the criminalization of civil protests. Thus, protesters and participants in social movements could be wrongly labeled as terrorists and face trials and arrests on terrorism charges. This trend of labeling political opponents as terrorists reflects a strategy that aims to weaken and criminalize opposition.Daniel Noboa could take Ecuador down a similar path to Bukele’s El Salvador, but this will depend on how Noboa manages his image and that of the referendum, and how he implements the proposed policies. Like Bukele, Noboa is young and inclined to pursue radical changes in reorienting his country’s politics and democracy. With an eye on future elections and popular legitimacy, it will be essential for Noboa to demonstrate his commitment to seeking effective solutions to Ecuador’s challenges.Finally, state violence in Latin America has often been legitimized in the name of security, which has led to serious institutional problems. State militarization provides greater coercive power, allowing governments to arbitrarily determine matters of life and death, especially in the context of suppressing political conflict. Although this has often been framed as a quest for security, such an approach often undermines civil rights and can be used against political groups or elements of civil society that disagree with the actions of the armed forces or state. This compromises a society’s ability to express critical opposition and to force the state to act more responsibly and responsively in its decision-making. Moreover, such security measures can escalate violence and lead to the emergence of paramilitary or criminal groups that seek to evade or challenge these security laws. This ultimately paves the way for a veiled authoritarianism in which the state’s repressive actions are hidden behind a veneer of democracy that legitimizes security policies. Such an approach not only compromises freedom but also threatens the integrity of democracy.

What Does Ecuador’s Referendum Result Entail?