Written by Federico Fuentes
Monday, 30 July 2007
Source: Green Left Weekly
Denouncing the congress as "rubbish" and a "national disgrace", left-wing Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa called on the upcoming constituent assembly, for which there will be elections held on September 30, to dissolve the body, which is widely viewed as corrupt. The calls came after the opposition-controlled congress amended a number of recent laws introduced by the executive to curb unprecedented rises in the price of food. Correa's call also came in the wake of congress's censure of finance minister Ricardo Patino over a scandal involving the secret filming of a discussion between the minister and figures from the banking sector. Patino is highly popular due to his hardline opposition to international financial institutions, recently stating that Ecuador should not pay its "illegitimate" foreign debt.
Reuters reported on July 25 that deputy economy minister Fausto Ortiz had been made Patino's successor. The news wire reported that "Ortiz, who has said his role is to make sure the government avoids a default on its foreign debt, told Reuters Ecuador would not do anything that might jeopardize foreign financing".
According to the July 22 edition of Venezuelan daily 2001, Correa made reference to the concerted campaign by big business to push prices up by 25%-50%, stating the "the groups of power are desperate and they will try to destabilise us by any means possible". He threatened business owners with prison terms if they were found to be involved in speculation.
"We will give them until Monday [July 23] for prices to return to their normal level or we will take measures [via] decrees and we will put in prison the business owners, the intermediaries, who are speculating."
He asked the population to be "prepared" because "this is only the beginning. Ahead of us are days which will be much more harder because the oligarchy, the partyocracy [a reference to the loathed traditional parties of the elite that dominate congress], certain media outlets, the banking sector, are desperate."
Dispute over hegemony
According to Virgilo Hernandez - a candidate for Agreement Country, an alliance formed by Correa's party Alliance Country to contest the constituent assembly elections - this clash was only the latest in an ongoing "period of confrontation" between Correa and "the oligarchic powers, financial powers, and large media corporations".
"We are living through a dispute over hegemony between the oligarchic forces, those forces that have opposed change, and the process of transformation being pushed by President Correa and other forces that are supporting Correa", he explained to Green Left Weekly during a visit to Venezuela in mid-July.
Correa contested the 2006 presidential elections with the stated aimed of bringing about a "citizen's revolution", uniting Ecuadorians behind a radical project aimed at moving Ecuador away from neoliberalism. Since day one of the Correa government, the international and local elites have been campaigning against the Correa government, which they see as a direct threat to their interests.
The congress has been one of the battle sites between the elites, represented in the form of the traditional political parties, and Correa's project. While Correa won convincingly in the second round of the presidential elections, his party did not contest the concurrently held elections for the congress. This left control of this widely discredited body in the hands of parties tied to the Ecuadorian elites. Instead, a central point of Correa's election campaign was to call a constituent assembly to do away with congress and rewrite the constitution to lay the foundations for a new Ecuador.
This is an idea shared by many in Ecuador. Blanca Chancoso, leader of ECUARUNARI, the largest indigenous organisation affiliated to the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador (CONAIE), told GLW that congress had lost all credibility, and that "it is the problem".
"The people are demanding its dissolution; it is not just a policy of the president. I believe that after the new constitution is approved, a new congress should be installed", she added. This was reflected in the strong show of support for Correa in April, when over 80% of Ecuadorians voted in favor of convening a constituent assembly, giving a massive boost to his popularity and his political project.
While Hernandez is not a member of Correa's party, his organisation, Democratic Alternative, has decided to come behind Correa's project, running candidates on his slate for the constituent assembly. Hernandez believes that Correa has a "clear conviction to create a homeland for all" and to construct a more democratic Ecuador. Through the constituent assembly, Ecuadorians will be able to work out "what we want our 'socialism of the 21st century' to look like".
For Hernandez, such a society requires "a democracy without end" with the extension and deepening of democracy "in the economic sphere, in the political sphere - [for example,] how can we democratise the right to education, health, housing, which until now have been in the constitution only in a rhetorical form".
On the other hand, Chancoso explained that CONAIE would be supporting the candidates of Pachakutik, the political arm of the Ecuador's powerful indigenous movement. "In the political, electoral sphere, Pachakutik is calling on different social sectors to converge, with a strong indigenous identity - which does not mean a movement or party that is exclusively indigenous, but rather that clearly identifies itself with the indigenous people."
Through the constituent assembly, Chancoso argues that Ecuadorians could begin to "lay the foundations of a new country that brings together the indigenous and non-indigenous population".
"We [the indigenous people] are more than 40% of the population. We have being putting forward our proposal of a plurinational state. Our country is not made up of just one people, but rather is comprised of many millenary peoples with different cultures, which existed long before the Spanish invasion."
Chancoso explained that for indigenous people, the demand of a "plurinational" state was a call for "unity based on diversity". This diversity allow for the self-determination of the indigenous peoples "as communities, as nations", but seen from within a "political process of identity, on the basis of a common political agenda, an agenda of sovereignty of the country".
"Our slogan is 'Never again a country without us'. Even if we do not gain a majority of delegates, we believe that we will be fighting inside [the assembly] to enshrine in the constitution real changes, a real restructuring to refound the country ..."
Even though there are different lists that will represent different sections of the left in the upcoming elections - Agreement Country, Pachakutik and the Maoist-influenced Movement for Popular Democracy (MPD) - Hernandez said that there was an important need "to make the effort to have a common project. We [Agreement Country] are making an effort to find points of agreement to transform the country and to deepen democracy, which we characterise as part of this new socialism of the 21st century."
From: International News, Green Left Weekly issue #719 1 August 2007.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)