Socialist Action /February 2000
Crisis in Ecuador
By GERRY FOLEY
Oppressed and Exploited
Indians Topple Govt.
Since the mass upsurge of Jan. 21 in Ecuador overthrew the government
of Jamil Mahuad, the international capitalist press has been filled with
stories claiming that these events represented a new danger of military
rule in Latin America. The truth is a bit different.
What happened was that the army broke under the momentum of a popular
rebellion, initiated by organizations representing the most oppressed and
exploited population of the country, the Indian peoples.
However, a layer of generals then stepped in and returned the government
to civilian bourgeois rule.
This was the second time in three years that an Ecuadoran government
has been toppled by a mass uprising because it tried to apply the economic
dictates of the international financial institutions. On this occasion,
the rebellion was touched off by Mahuad's attempt to peg the Ecuadoran currency,
the Sucre, to the U.S. dollar.
A communiqué from the Indian organization CONAIE, cited in the
Fourth International on-line press service, explained what "dollarization"
means for the poor masses of Ecuador:
"It means that when the basic wage is $40, the family basket for
a family of five is $250. In the countryside, the Indians and peasants can
no longer buy fertilizer. Should we leave the countryside? But the cities
only offer us more poverty. Despite the government's big talk about large-scale
investments in health and education, in practice these services are no longer
free. ... If you manage to see a doctor, you can't pay for your medicine."
Over the past year, the Ecuadoran economy has declined by more than 7
percent, and inflation has reached the level of 60 percent.
The Indian population on the land began to rise up. The CONAIE communiqué
continued: "On Jan. 11, after the organization of parish, canton, and
provincial parliaments, we set up a National Parliament of the Peoples,
as an alternative government in which the various sections of society were
discussing and putting forward proposals of a government and a multinational
state....
"The indigenous and popular uprising called for various actions,
such as blocking the roads and cutting off the supply of agricultural products
to the cities, and mobilizations advancing from the countryside to the cities."
That began the march on the capital, Quito. "At that point, we saw
high levels of repression and coercion. Tanks and military squadrons appeared
in the roads of the communities. All produce destined for the consumption
of the communities was requisitioned for Quito, along with the vehicles
in which it was being transported.
"Interprovincial buses got orders to move anything, people and even
animals, but no Indians. Everyone who was dressed like an Indian or who
looked like an Indian was forced to get out of the buses."
But the military repression was overwhelmed by masses of Indians marching
on the cities. About 40,000 people mustered in front of the congressional
building in Quito.
A later dispatch by the FI on-line service reported: "At 10 a.m.
on Friday morning, Jan. 21, a large group of Indians, headed by Colonel
Lucio Gutierrez, occupied the congressional building. They declared the
government removed and set up a council of government headed by Gutiérrez;
Antonio Vargas, the leader of CONAIE [the national Indian organization],
and Carlos Solorzano Constine, former chief judge of the Supreme Court.
"At 3 p.m., the minister of defense, General Mendoza, issued a statement
saying that the armed forces had called for Mahuad's resignation but were
insisting on a constitutional solution (that he should be succeeded by the
vice president).
Mendoza subsequently managed to replace Gutierrez in the rebel government
council and impose the installation of the vice president, Gustavo Naboa.
That for the moment ended the rebellion. Gutierrez was arrested and imprisoned.
According to the Guayaquil daily, El Universo, the reactionary generals
were able to resume control because the younger officials who were swept
along by the rebellion did not control enough military units.
According to the Fourth International correspondent in Ecuador, the uprising
failed primarily for two reasons: (1) The development of the mobilizations
was uneven. Protests by urban workers did not match the scope of the rural
uprising. (2) The alternative government was not well enough organized.
It did not come as close to real dual power as the popular parliaments of
the February 1997 uprising.
The Jan. 21 uprising has clearly terrified the Ecuadoran bourgeoisie.
It is turning again to repression in order to try to break the mass movement.
Defenders of the rights of working people and democratic rights in general
have to be alert to come to the aid of the victims of state terror in Ecuador.
But reports from inside the country indicate that the mass organizations
and leaders involved in the rebellion remain confident. Mass opposition
to austerity and impoverishment has continued to seethe and spread over
the past two years. After the failure of the Jan. 21 revolt, it has only
temporarily receded. It may not be far from another, still more powerful
explosion.
The Ecuadoran rebellions are an indication that the century now opening
will not be any less revolutionary than the one now ended-and the repercussions
of such a rebellion can be international.
Socialist Action /February 2000 |