On January 19, 16 presidential candidates attended the presidential debate organized by the National Electoral Council. Given a large number of candidates (16 candidates for the presidential seat), the discussion was divided into two-time slots (each lasting 2 hours) in which eight candidates took turns to speak. Though, given the high number of presidential candidates, it was not exactly a debate, as the candidates had, at best, 90 seconds to intervene before the moderators interrupted them.
On the contrary, the brevity of the interventions promoted superficial answers and grandiloquent speeches that sought to attract the attention of a largely undecided electorate. Although it is true that most of the polls show that the current president and right-wing candidate Daniel Noboa and the correista Luisa González are ahead in the voting intentions, there is still a considerable number of undecided voters who could still give a surprise in the coming elections.
The debate topics, chosen ahead of the debate by a commission, addressed issues such as the recruitment of minors by criminal gangs, the possible trial of minors as adults, national security, economic growth, employment generation, penitentiary policy, economic projects, the reduction or not of the state apparatus, gender violence, and others.
The first group of candidates
In the first part of the debate, the show down was between right-wing candidates Henry Cucalón (Construye), Francesco Tabacchi (CREO), Henry Kronfle (Social Christian Party), Luis Felipe Tillería (AVANZA) Juan Iván Cueva (Friend Movement), and current President Daniel Noboa (ADN); as well as centrist Jimmy Jairala (Democratic Center) and leftist Jorge Escala (Popular Unity) .
Predictably, most of the presidential candidates directed their attacks at Noboa; some did so harshly or mildly. While the right-wing candidates criticized Noboa, they essentially promoted proposals similar to those of the current government, but which, supposedly, they would do functionally. Tillería imitated Milei’s slogan (“Long live freedom, dammit!”, he repeated in a high-flown manner), while Cucalón, Kronfle, and Tabacchi insisted on strengthening the armed forces in the fight against drug trafficking, as well as the privatization of public enterprises. All, including Noboa, insisted that the only way to improve security was to continue strengthening the police and the military in the supposed war against drug trafficking.
For his part, Noboa tried to vindicate the actions of his government in every speech, constantly affirming that his state policies had been the correct ones. However, the superficial differences in the discourse soon turned into programmatic similarities: most of the right-wing candidates proposed to radicalize the neoliberal model through the concession or privatization of public enterprises, social security, and the handing over of the hydroelectric plant to private capital. However, unlike his opponents, Noboa had the opportunity to speak not only of promises but also of the projects that his government is carrying out and the figures that he presumes, (although these have been constantly questioned) “We have reduced violent deaths by more than 15%, we have reduced femicides by 25%…and all in one year [of government].”
Jairala and Cueva tried to present a centrist and conciliatory discourse, according to which the State should be efficient, although the supposedly excessive number of civil servants should be decreased. However, they did not manage to stand out in the face of the evident polarization in the atmosphere of the TV studio, which demanded a greater frontal attack against the current President of the Republic.
The only openly leftist candidate in the first group was Escala, who proposed the non-privatization of public enterprises and social security, as well as the hydroelectric plant, through the strengthening of the State, public health, and education. He was also the candidate who spoke most clearly against the anti-sovereignty policies of Noboa, who a few months ago ceded some ports in the Galapagos Islands to US troops. In this regard, Escala said, “You [Noboa] are defending privileges, we will defend rights…You are selling out the country”. Escala also strongly rebuked President Noboa when he demanded the payment of the multimillion-dollar debt (almost 100 million dollars) that his family (the richest in the country) owes to the Treasury, to which the President did not respond.
Another moment that has gone viral online occurred when candidate Tabacchi asked President Noboa the names of the four children captured by the military in Guayaquil last December, who later appeared tortured, burned, and murdered near the town of Taura, an event that moved the country and that some have labeled as a State crime. Tabacchi said “The tragedy of the four children broke us all. Many of us have kept silent. But the President of the Republic cannot remain silent. Tell us the names of the four children and decide if you ask forgiveness from the country.” Noboa’s response, which some have claimed was cynical and not at all empathetic, was, “There was no question.” Noboa failed to stand out in the debate and his evasive and not very elaborate answers have remained in the viewers’ retina.
The second group
The second group of candidates included Enrique Gómez (SUMA), Luisa González (Citizen Revolution), Carlos Rabascall (Democratic Left), Andrea González (Patriotic Society Party), Pedro Granja (Ecuadorian Socialist Party), Iván Saquicela (“Democracy Yes”), Leonidas Iza (Pachakutik), and Víctor Araúz (PID).
In this second round of the debate, mostly left-wing, progressive, and centrist candidates participated, with the exception of Andrea González and Víctor Araúz, the two most right-wing candidates in the elections.
It was no surprise that Araúz, Andrea González, and Iván Saquicela directed their attacks on Luisa González, specifically on the administration of former President Correa, which has been accused by the right-wing of corruption. Saquicela (former president of the Supreme Court of Justice) asked the candidate of the Citizen Revolution how she would grant a pardon to Jorge Glas (former Vice President of Correa’s administration who has been in prison for several months), to which Luisa González evaded the question and asked about the links between Saquicela and drug trafficking. Andrea González, assuming a right-wing libertarian discourse, dedicated the whole debate to attacking Correísmo. For his part, Araúz (former chief of the national police) offered to send criminals “to the cemetery” by reinstituting the death penalty in the country, one of the most controversial proposals of the debate, while accusing Iza of having caused millionaire losses to businessmen during the last anti-neoliberal protests.
Those who sought to position themselves in the center of the political spectrum were Rabascall, Granja, and Gómez. Rabascall assumed an openly social democratic discourse affirming that the economy can improve thanks to public investment: “Enough of believing that austerity models lead to development” he said in the panel. Gómez sought to dissociate himself from the correísmo-anticorreísmo dichotomy by betting on the intervention of private capital in the state economy, although he proposed investing in some public companies. Granja, on his part, said that it is necessary to increase the number of public employees because of the state’s inefficiency. He also promised not to privatize health, education, and security. However, he proposed to dismiss all police and army generals and to select their replacements thanks to the advice of the United States and several European countries, a proposal that aligns with his anti-sovereignty statements of a few days ago to keep US troops in Galapagos.
On the other hand, Luisa González, who according to opinion polls will go to the second electoral round, maintained a cautious speech on economic issues. The Correísmo candidate proposed to improve the capacity of the State by strengthening it and to improve the economy through public investment in infrastructure projects. In addition, she insisted that during her administration, private companies would be able to invest in state-owned companies, which many analysts have seen as an attempt to win some votes that traditionally support the center-right. She also directed his criticism to Noboa’s government (who was no longer present in the second part of the debate), appealing to a lack of ethics and sensitivity of the Executive regarding the crime of the four children of Guayaquil. She also appealed to the possibility of building a country in peace: “We have the opportunity to change lies for truth, fear for hope, and violence for peace.”
Finally, Leonidas Iza, who has defined himself as a Marxist and who led the last two massive mobilizations against the neoliberal governments of Lenin Moreno and Guillermo Lasso, bet on a sovereign and anti-oligarchic discourse. Regarding drug trafficking, he proposed a “hard hand” against criminals and a strong social investment in marginalized neighborhoods; however, he was the only candidate who proposed to act against large commercial and financial businesses that currently benefit from drug trafficking, and not only against those he called “the little soldiers of the mafia”. He affirmed that in his government there would be no large-scale mining and that he would never privatize public companies. He also proposed to stop IMF policies in the country and to offer a popular alternative to the economic crisis, in which not just a few but all would benefit. His final intervention went viral for his frontal criticism of Noboa: “Ecuador is not a people of beggars, it is a rebellious, honest and hardworking people…Yupaychani [Thank you in Quichua]. Thank you. And for Noboa Thank you, bye-bye [in English, referring to the fact that Noboa was born in the United States and that he has assumed a pro-American stance in all aspects].”
Will the debate have any repercussions?
Some analysts have stated that the debate will not have major importance in the voting preference in the next elections, due to the high polarization between Correism and anti-Correism that supposedly exists in the population. “The debate as a premise is important to clarify positions, but it is of little use to define an election, even less so with a limited format to develop ideas and proposals in depth. It is part of one more act of the campaign and I believe that it will not be decisive because there was nothing extraordinary or significant to attract attention or define or restate positions,” wrote Miguel Rivadeneira, analyst of El Universo newspaper.
For his part, political scientist Santiago Basabe affirms that both Luisa Gonzalez and Daniel Noboa remained cautious in the debate because they likely think they will pass to the second round, and there they will launch their best blows against their opponent. “The presidential candidate presented a summarized report of his administration in front of each question posed, without saying much more than what the state propaganda has already put on the table. The representative of the Citizen Revolution, avoiding any reference to her political organization and its leader [Rafael Correa], said little beyond what is already known.” Likewise, Iza seems to be entrenched in third place after the debate, while Granja and Andrea Gonzalez could give some surprises in the next elections in February.
