What is the difference between what happened in Peru and Ecuador?

BOGOTA —

Only five months have passed since Pedro Castillo’s announcement to dissolve the Peruvian Congress so that, in Latin America, another president, the Ecuadorian Guillermo Lasso, would make the same decision. However, there are big differences between the situation in both countries.

In principle, there is a constitutional difference “in form and method, since in Ecuador the president can act immediately when he considers it necessary, while in Peru the president must carry out an administrative, operational and legal process,” explained the president. international analyst Luis Alberto Villamarín to the voice of america.

In Ecuador, Lasso, accused of corruption by Congress and threatened with impeachment, resorted to an action protected by the Constitution of his country – contemplated in 2008 – for “serious internal and political commotion”, according to what he said. This leaves the discretion of the president to dissolve the National Assembly, as long as certain circumstances are met. One of them is that the actions of the Legislature block the functioning of the government.

To the decree dissolution of the Legislative, through the so-called “cross death”, early general elections must be held, thus also putting the president at stake his political future, in order to renew the legislative and executive powers. For the moment, Lasso will be able to govern for up to six months by decree, with the control of the Constitutional Court.

In the Peruvian case, former President Castillo, who was about to have a impeachment trial against him, He dissolved Congress on December 7, announced that he would govern by decree, and established a national emergency cabinet. In this sense, he went to one of his faculties, supported by Article 134 of the Political Constitution of Peruwhich points out that “the President of the Republic is empowered to dissolve Congress if it has censured or denied its confidence in two Councils of Ministers.”

As background, on November 11, the Peruvian Congress refused to attend a motion of confidence and the Castillo government accepted it as rejected, which would require only a second refusal. However, one day before the dissolution, the Peruvian Constitutional Court reported that it still did not agree with interpreting whether the prior requests were a matter of trust and that Castillo he was unable to close Parliament.

For Germán Sahid, a professor at the Universidad del Rosario, what happened in Peru “was illegal”, while the case in Ecuador is “legal”. President Castillo, “abusively, and contrary to the constitutional order, annulled a branch of public power, and that is contrary to the democratic spirit of the Peruvian Constitution. In the case of Ecuador, the president has the power to annul the two branches of public power,” the analyst explained to the VOA.

“Congress commits suicide and he commits suicide, so to speak, then politically the balance of power remains,” observed the expert.

In summary, adds Héctor Galeano, an internationalist and professor at the Department of Political Science and International Relations at the Universidad del Norte, in Colombia, the big difference “is that there is constitutional support that Lasso has to carry out this procedure” that Castillo did not “comply with.” ”.

Support of the Military Forces

Sahid stressed to the VOA that the function of the military forces, “in any democratic country, is to defend the Constitution. They are the guardians of the constitutional order and, regardless of political discourse, without being belligerent, they are the ones that balance and end up giving legitimacy or illegitimacy to some government action”, in countries like Peru and Ecuador.

In the case of Peru, opponents of the former president and constitutional experts assured that Castillo’s action was a “coup d’etat.” For their part, the Military Forces turned their backs on the former president, in what they called a self-coup, and showed their support for the then Vice President, Dina Boluarte.

The Ecuadorian Armed Forces and National Police, for their part, assured that Lasso’s decision to dissolve the Assembly It was enshrined in the Constitution.

For the academic from the Universidad del Rosario, in Ecuador, the military spoke to “demonstrate that what President Lasso and two did is legal, to contain any eventual subversion or citizen demonstration of any subversive element in Ecuador who wanted to take advantage of this situation of annulment of branches of public power to generate disorders or institutional ruptures in Ecuador”.

In the case of Peru, says Sahid, “given the uncertainty of that action and if eventually Castillo’s action had had legitimacy from the citizenry”, the military forces balanced “the balance.”

different destinations

The destinies of the leaders are very different, according to analysts. For Villamarín, the differences between the two are related to the great advantage that Lasso has over Castillo regarding managerial suitability, cultural level, sociopolitical knowledge of the country, relations with the productive sector, greater confidence in the White House, respectful relations with institutions armed, better structured political supporters, relatively better relationship with the media and government capacity, among other aspects.

Another component, adds Galeano, is that in addition to the fact that “Castillo made a mistake, the current president of Peru “has seized the presidential seat and He has not called an election.

In Ecuador, he adds, several readings can be given. First Lasso “has a constitutional spring and that is unquestionable.” The other is that some sectors of Correísmo criticize him because they consider that his move allowed him to “evade what seems to be an imminent dismissal.”

Another interpretation that Galeano makes is that “correísmo is obtaining a victory” if Lasso leaves power, but he would have the challenge of solving the long year that remains in his mandate.

However, for the analyst Villamarín, although Lasso has the support of the Military Forces and the Police, it is not a guarantee that “the continental left, drug trafficking and ex officio opponents who abound in Ecuador, do not call for street protests demanding the departure of the president”, generating excesses and violence, and an “inevitable governance crisis in which Rafael Correa will seek to appear as the savior Messiah, who was a victim of the right that Lasso represents.”

So far, the truth is that former President Castillo is in prison in the Barbadillo prison, while he is being investigated for the alleged crime of rebellion and conspiracy for attempting a “coup” to establish an emergency government. As for Lasso, he continues to preside over Ecuador until the elections are held to choose the next president and members of the Ecuadorian National Assembly.

Connect with the Voice of America! Subscribe to our channel Youtube and activate notifications, or follow us on social networks: Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.