First, some history (drawn directly from Wikipedia):
Recession and popular unrest led to a return to populist politics and domestic military interventions in the 1960s, while foreign companies developed oil resources in the Ecuadorian Amazon. In 1972, a nationalist military regime seized power and used the new oil wealth and foreign borrowing to pay for a program of industrialization, land reform, and subsidies for urban consumers. With the oil boom fading, Ecuador returned to democracy in 1979, but by 1982, the government faced an economic crisis, characterized by inflation, budget deficits, a falling currency, mounting debt service, and uncompetitive industries.
Since its return to democracy, Ecuador has been marked by chronic governmental instability. Many years of continuous mismanagement, starting with the mishandling of the contry's debt during the 1970's military regime, have left the country escentially ungovernable. By the mid 90's, the government of Ecuador has been characterized by a weak executive branch that struggles to appease the ruling classes, represented in the legislative and judiciary. All democratically elected presidents have failed to finish their terms during that period.
There are many causes for this. The most critical underlying factor is the emergence of native indians (non-mestizo) as an active constituency. As a group, they were pushed into prominence due to government failures to deliver on promises of land reform, lowering unemployment, and historical exploitation of the native populace. Their movement, in turn, started a deterioration of the executive office. Today, the notion that presidents are always in danger of being ousted by a majority in congress, a strike movement, or a combination thereof, is widely accepted. Hence, the president has gone from being the representative of the people to become a convenient scapegoat to politicians and the wealthy for the social ails of the country. Moreover, massive demostrations of civil unrest has started a vicious circle in which presidents who are unwilling or unable to make the necessary moves towards popular policies are ousted; with all the economic and governmental fallout that such a drastic change entails - and which will likely ensnare the next president. Thus, at its current state, ecuadorean presidents will be extremely unlikely to reconcile quality of life improvements with the desires of the social elite who entrenched in congress and other government posts.
Ecuadorean presidents often run on the idea that they will empower the people to overthrow this economic and social inequality. However, the public gives its leader very little political capital to work with, as it happened when in April 2005 Ecuador's Congress ousted President Lucio Gutiérrez. The Vice-President, Alfredo Palacio, took his place and is expected to be in power until the next scheduled election. As of September 2005, Ecuador still has no judicial power and is in the process of rewriting documents that will allow the people to elect the highest court members directly through public election rather than have them assigned by the ruling political party.
So, this was the situation in September; however, unrest has arisen earlier than expected and poor Alfredo is trying to push reform while keeping from being ousted just six months after his president was.
Then, pulling some quotes from another article (which I unfortunately cannot link to since it was originally in Spanish, and I'm getting the translation from LexisNexis):
Ecuador is experiencing a tense political atmosphere due to discrepancies between Palacio and a congressional majority regarding the mechanism with which to conduct a political reform.It also says in that article that he is planning to meet with indigenous movement leaders... which I didn't understand the significance of, but in light of the fact that they have been the ones spearheading the overthrow of so many of Palacio's predecessors.. well, seems like a good choice.
The president has proposed a constituent assembly that would have full powers, but opposition deputies are advocating that Congress itself or a constitutional assembly with limited powers should conduct the political reform.
On 27 October Congress asked the OAS to take action at this juncture in Ecuadoran politics, while social movements that favour a constituent assembly are demanding that Palacio directly convene a referendum to approve the assembly.
A proposal to approve the assembly was blocked last week by the Supreme Electoral Tribunal (TSE), which characterized it as unconstitutional, even though some experts and the government itself said that the TSE does not have the power to block proposals.
In his speech on 27 October, Palacio confirmed his "total commitment to the constitution, laws, and national interests," and his determination to carry out a political reform, but he did not outline his plan.
The local media said that the president is preparing to directly convene a referendum without the endorsement of Congress or the TSE, so that the people can choose the path to reform.
So, I don't know much about whether Palacio is a good president or not, except that it doesn't seem ideal for Ecuador to be experiencing this constant political upheaval...
(I would have more links to articles, but Prensa Latina, which has been my best source for South American news -- despite being published out of Havana -- appears to be down. So possibly more on this later.)
