Rafael Correa is the president of Ecuador. He has a Ph.D. in economics from the University of Illinois. Anti-Chávez well-educated high-earning professional Venezuelan women told me on multiple occasions that they consider him very attractive.
That, however, is not why he's in the news. He's in the news because Ecuadorean voters approved a new constitution today. Opponents call it “Bolivarian.” Even non-opponents have called it “socialist.” Both are silly. Correa is far from Bolivarian. (Update: It has been pointed out in comments that he declared himself Bolivarian in 2006, although he is generally considered to have distanced himself from Venezuela.) Those same professionals who called Correa handsome also called him sensible, and I tend to agree. Correa is relatively radical. But he's also sensible and clearly a democrat.
Which doesn't mean that the new constitution is a good thing for Ecuador.
What's wrong with it? Well, the the 1998 Magna Carta was pretty bad. Its most innocuous feature is a lot of blather about social policy. As regular readers know, I've argued that the evidence supports the idea that large social transfers are, at worst, not bad for growth and there is considerable evidence that they speed it up. That said, spending commitments in a constitution are generally a bad idea. Either the commitments will be dead letters, or you'll involve the judiciary in making spending decisions --- neither seems wise.
More problematic was the amount of power it placed in the president. He or she had control of monetary policy. (Indirectly, since he or she appointed the central bank board, with Congressional approval. I'm neutral on dollarization, but placing control of monetary policy in the president's hands was a bad idea.) It removed cabinet ministers from Congressional oversight. It allowed the president to control Congress's legislative agenda. In fact, it prevented anyone but the president from introducing revenue bills. It limited the kinds of treaties that need Congressional ratification to those that establish "alliances" or "integration." It let the president call referenda.
I've only give the new constitution a cursory reading, but it doesn't fix any of these things. In fact, it makes some worse. Now the president has total control over making and ratifying treaties. (Article 147, although Article 419 seems to re-establish the same limits as the old constitution.) It grants the President the power to dissolve Congress and call new elections. (Article 148.) Bizarrely, it prohibits the government from assuming private debts while making it easier to renounce public ones. (Article 290.) And it puts monetary policy directly in the hands of the President, removing even the old constitution's fig leaf. (Article 303.)
Plus, it bans genetically-modified products. That's just a little weird for a constitution.
Still, it isn't the worst constitution I've ever seen in terms of centralizing executive power. (The 1917 constitution of Mexico was pretty bad in its original form.) And Ecuadorean political culture doesn't have a great record of hewing to constitutional rules, so it's not clear how much any of it will matter. Plus, it does permit limited presidential re-election, which is probably a good thing.
In short, I'm not a big fan, but it's not a disaster relative to the previous constitution, and if the ancilliary stuff brings legitimacy to Ecuador's fundamental law, then that will be good.
But color me skeptical.
"Opponents call it “Bolivarian.” Even non-opponents have called it “socialist.” Both are silly. Correa is far from Bolivarian."
Correa openly declares himself "bolivarian", and is an advocate of 21st Century Socialism, and its fairly obvious that he's following the same general ideological and politica lines of Chavez in Venezuela.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seVWKZcntkU
"I'm neutral on dollarization, but placing control of monetary policy in the president's hands was a bad idea."
Can you back this up with facts, or evidence?
Posted by: Toby | September 29, 2008 at 01:29 PM