The 2024 referendum reveals anti-neoliberal social and political movements in Ecuador
Francisco Hidalgo Flor [1]
INTRODUCTION
This article analyzes the results of the referendum held on April 21st in Ecuador. It argues that this evaluation must be placed within the context of the political strategies of Daniel Noboa's government, interpreted as an intensification of the right-wing offensive that has gripped the country since 2017, and which has taken on specific characteristics during this presidential term. However, it positively highlights the results of two of the referendum questions, where the popular vote rejected clear neoliberal proposals. It views this outcome as a setback for the aforementioned offensive.
CALL FOR A REFERENDUM AND POPULAR CONSULTATION 2024
The call for a Referendum and Popular Consultation was made by Noboa himself in an effort to consolidate his “political capital” and strengthen his prospects for reelection in the upcoming 2025 elections. For the Referendum, which involves reforming the Constitution, he proposed five questions, and for the Popular Consultation, which involves reforming laws or legal codes, he proposed six questions.
Taken together, the eleven questions submitted to the popular vote corresponded to two themes and a political strategy. The first theme refers to the issue of security and proposes deepening the role of the armed forces and increasing penalties, including extradition; this consisted of nine (9) questions. The second theme refers to eliminating constitutional obstacles and prohibitions to key aspects of the neoliberal package: legalizing hourly labor contracts and submitting to international arbitration in commercial and investment matters; this consisted of two (2) questions.
The political strategy, along with seeking the political consolidation of Noboa's short regime, was to deepen the militarization of society, accentuate the repressive and authoritarian model, in the name of combating drug trafficking, encourage conservative positions in the population, and along with this, introduce job insecurity and a reduction of national sovereignty.
These objectives were not fully achieved in the electoral event; although it is true that a favorable ruling was obtained on the questions related to the issue of security and control, the same did not happen on the questions about the neoliberal issue.
For explanatory purposes, this article has a methodological and political focus, concentrating on what has happened in the questions of the neoliberal theme, since we believe that there is a novelty there that is worth highlighting: social and political reserves are evident that could be decisive in a perspective of stopping the right-wing offensive.
When the people at the polls on April 21st voted 65% against international arbitration and 69% against a labor reform involving hourly contracts, they not only dealt a blow to Noboa's political figure but also affected the strategy of reinforcing the neoliberal model.
It is worth remembering that not long ago, in August 2023, in a national popular consultation, under citizen initiative, on the issue of closing oil exploitation in the Amazonian area of Yasuní, this anti-extractivist thesis obtained favorable support from 59% of the electorate.
There, a wealth of social awareness and a transcendent, democratizing political stance is displayed, resisting and confronting two pillars of the transnational capital strategy: mining extractivism and labor precarity.
We do not forget that the broader electoral and political context of August 2023 and April 2024 is the deepening of the right-wing trend in the country, as evidenced by the fact that Lasso, a conservative ex-banker, is succeeded by Noboa, an agro-exporter, both on each occasion with electoral support of around 53% of the vote, and together they implement a right-wing offensive.
SIX MONTHS OF NOBOA AND AUTHORITARIAN DRIFT
During the short time that Daniel Noboa has been president of the republic, from December to the present date, there has been an accelerated process of authoritarianism and militarization of national life.
Noboa won the presidential elections of November 2023 presenting himself as the candidate of national reconciliation in the face of political polarization and violence. He emerged in a context of anxiety and terror caused by the assassination of candidate Villavicencio, with an electoral structure more focused on advertising marketing than on party formation.
One of his first decisions was to create a parliamentary pact involving his legislative bloc with the two leading political forces, those of the Citizen Revolution party (the movement of former President Rafael Correa), and the Social Christian Party, under the slogan of renouncing ideologies in favor of a peace program.
Once in office, he quickly changed course, adopting militarization and forceful measures. In the first week of January 2024, he declared a national state of emergency, ostensibly to combat drug trafficking gangs, and this has continued to the present day. On April 22, the day after the referendum, he renewed the state of emergency, this time citing an energy crisis.
The essence of his discourse is security, militarization, and war. The sequence of measures is very telling: on January 8th he declared a state of emergency, and by the 10th he had decreed an “internal armed conflict,” labeled approximately twenty drug trafficking gangs as “terrorist armed groups,” and placed the army in control of prisons and so-called “dangerous territories.”
Alongside this, the discourse of combating corruption and the judicialization of politics is crucial; here, the decisive role is played by the Attorney General of the Nation, Diana Salazar, who this semester is promoting two high-profile cases, the so-called "metastasis" and "purge", with accusations of agreements and common actions between drug kingpins with judges and parliamentarians.
Likewise, during these months, the treaties of military agreement and joint actions against drug trafficking between the Ecuadorian government and the military, espionage and anti-drug apparatuses of the United States of America are consolidated.
These are the pillars of the right-wing offensive in Ecuador, which reached its most serious point with the events in early April of the military and police incursion into the Mexican embassy in Quito, the violation of the right to asylum and the inviolability of diplomatic premises.
For this reason, Noboa, both personally and through Vice-Chancellor Dávalos, presented at the OAS session on April 9th the thesis of "reviewing and updating" the understanding of human rights in general, and the right to asylum in particular. This position was justified given the situation of internal conflict and the fight against corruption [2].
This discourse has been amplified and justified by ideological media apparatuses, using both traditional and novel instruments, and supported by very strong power structures: internally, the agro-export sectors and transnational capital, and internationally, the leading military power in the region and the world.
With the regrettable events surrounding the Mexican embassy, Noboa went from being a virtually unnoticed leader—it's difficult to find any of his public appearances in national or international forums lasting longer than fifteen minutes and where he addresses any topic other than security—to becoming a leading figure in the rightward shift across the continent. It is the gravity of the event that generated this prominence; not even the military dictatorships had dared to go so far.
POSITIONS REGARDING THE REFERENDUM
It's clear we're facing an authoritarian regime with a voracious appetite for power. It's logical to assume that when he called for the referendum and popular consultation process in early February, his goal was to win everything; the forecasts also favored him, paving the way for reelection.
Furthermore, it started with a parliamentary agreement, in which the leading political force, "Citizen Revolution," was involved and whose initial position was to describe this referendum call as "inconsequential."
Who committed themselves to opposing the presidential theses?: Initially, there were trade union organizations, such as the United Workers' Front and the General Union of Workers, the traditional left, such as Popular Unity, the indigenous movement, both Conaie and Pachakutik, sectors of the environmental movement, such as Yasunidos, and feminist movements.
It is interesting to note that only ten political organizations were registered to campaign publicly in this Referendum [3] , in a country that has 260 registered political movements and parties.
It was important that there was a social and political accumulation stemming from the anti-neoliberal struggles of the early 2000s, which were enshrined in the 2008 Constitution. But not only that, the new generations opposed a future marked by job insecurity and the loss of rights.
It was also relevant that the regime revealed its worst authoritarian face in the assault on the Mexican embassy, which in turn precipitated the shift of the Citizen Revolution party, which declared itself in opposition and only then entered the campaign for the No.
And in the last week before the Referendum, an electricity crisis erupted, with the extensive blackouts of the past returning, demonstrating the regime's inability to handle a predicted emergency.
RESULTS AND VOTING ON LABOR ISSUES AND INTERNATIONAL ARBITRATION
The results of the Referendum and the Popular Consultation partially favored the regime, but also revealed a significant accumulation of anti-neoliberal social and political awareness and positioning.
The "Yes" thesis won in nine of the questions; the one that received the most support was the first question of the Referendum, referring to legalizing the presence of the Armed Forces in the internal fight against drug trafficking gangs, where it obtained 73% of the vote.
We continue where the Yes vote won: in question B (extradition) it obtained 64%, in question C (specialized courts) it obtained 59%, in question F (Army in arms control) it obtained 69%, in question G (increase in penalties) it obtained 67%, in question H (compliance with sentences) it obtained 66%, in question I (carrying weapons) it obtained 63%, in question J (weapons for police) it obtained 64%, in question K (extinction of ownership) it obtained 60% [4].
Undoubtedly, the positions of militarization, increased sentences, and restriction of rights have managed to gain significant social and political support, affirms conservative positions on the issue.
Leftist and rights-based positions on the issue of drug trafficking, the increase in criminal violence, and the structural causes behind drug trafficking do not achieve social consensus and remain in the minority.
But the results also reveal another side of the political and social debate: neoliberal and extractivist theses fail to gain national consensus, while the thesis of resistance and for alternative forms of work with rights and in defense of nature maintains strong support among the population as a whole.
We're going to take a closer look at the data surrounding these two questions:
Question D stated the following: Do you agree that the Ecuadorian State should recognize international arbitration as a method for resolving disputes in investment, contractual or commercial matters?
Here, the "No" vote obtained 65% nationally and the "Yes" vote obtained 34%, which is broken down as follows, at the provincial level [5] :
Chart No. 1: Results of question D of the 2024 Referendum.
Firstly, the "No" thesis fails to triumph in all provinces of Ecuador, the highest support is in Sucumbios where it reaches 78% and the lowest is in Tungurahua with 59%.
Secondly, 11 provinces are above the national average, two of which are in the Amazon region: Sucumbios and Orellana; seven are in the Andean region: Cotopaxi, Imbabura, Carchi, Bolívar, Chimborazo, Azuay and Pichincha; two are in the coastal region: Manabí and Santa Elena.
Of these 11, seven correspond to provinces with a significant indigenous population, at least two are strongholds of Correism, and there is the center of political activity: Quito.
Now let's look at the details of question E, which said the following: Do you agree to amend the Constitution and the Labor Code for fixed-term and hourly employment contracts when they are entered into for the first time between the same employer and employee?
Here, the "No" vote obtained 69% nationally and the "Yes" vote obtained 31%. Here, the rejection of the question rises four points (from 65% to 69%), which is broken down as follows, at the provincial level:
Chart No. 2: Results of question E of the 2024 Referendum.
Similar to the previous one, it is a pronouncement for No in all provinces of the country, the highest support is again in Sucumbíos with 82% and the lowest is in Pastaza with 63%.
Secondly, we again have 11 provinces above the national average, which are the same as in question D, that is, they show a cohesion in the anti-neoliberal positioning, a little more pronounced than before.
We could advance an analysis combining data and political contexts, to affirm readings such as the following: i) there is a recovery of the vote from indigenous and rural sectors, ii) a vote articulated to progressivism is sustained, especially in urban centers and coastal provinces, iii) it is possible to indicate that the influence of the union and environmental movements is relevant, iv) it is foreseeable that the vote of youth sectors aligned in rejection of labor precarity.
We appreciate that there is a consistency in this accumulated anti-neoliberal positioning; it is present at the national level, has strong points in certain regions of the country, and is influenced by parties and social movements.
CHALLENGES POSED BY THESE RESULTS
The analysis we have conducted regarding this event in Ecuador's political landscape—the results of the 2024 referendum—highlights the social and political movements opposed to neoliberalism, while also demonstrating the possibilities and conditions for democratic, left-wing forces, movements, parties, individuals, and collectives to halt the conservative, authoritarian offensive of right-wing and militaristic sectors.
There is an accumulated reserve of national and democratic consciousness that can be drawn upon, strengthened, recovered, and nurtured, which, at certain times and under certain conditions, has achieved significant victories, such as the positions in defense of Yasuní, or circumstantial but relevant majorities such as the resistance to precarious employment in this 2024 referendum.
It is necessary to deploy organizational and policy-making efforts capable of reversing the trend, both nationally and globally, of right-wing movements that stir up rhetoric of fear, hatred, and segregation—right-wing movements that thrive in a world of wars.
[1] Sociologist, professor at the Central University of Ecuador.
[2] Regarding the arguments presented by the Ecuadorian government at the OAS session of April 9, 2024, see the Primicias.ec website: https://www.primicias.ec/noticias/politica/consejo-permanente-oea-crisis-diplomatica-ecuador-mexico-glas/
[3] To see the organizations registered to campaign in the April 2024 Referendum, see: https://www.cne.gob.ec/10-organizaciones-calificadas-para-campana-del-referendum-y-consulta-popular-2024/
[4] For the results of the Referendum and Popular Consultation, see the website of the National Electoral Council of Ecuador: https://consulta2024.cne.gob.ec/#
[5] The data source at the provincial level also corresponds to the official reports of the CNE: https://consulta2024.cne.gob.ec/#
