Did Oswaldo Hurtado Exaggerate? Debate Over Ecuador's Democratic Health

Recent statements by former Ecuadorian President Oswaldo Hurtado, alleging a dictatorship and widespread fear of expressing opinions, have ignited intense debate. The controversy stems not from disagreement, but from the swift personal disqualification of Hurtado rather than a substantive discussion of his arguments. Some admitted ignorance of Hurtado's background while questioning his credibility.

This reaction warrants reflection. Disagreeing with Hurtado is legitimate; labeling Ecuador a dictatorship might indeed be excessive. The country maintains relatively competitive elections, political pluralism, and public discourse spaces that distinguish it from true dictatorships. However, dismissing an assertion is different from discrediting the person making it.

Hurtado is no political novice. He served as constitutional vice president, assumed the presidency after Jaime Roldós's death, and has been a respected analyst for over four decades. His intellectual and personal honesty is beyond doubt. In an era of political discredit, such moral authority merits respectful consideration of his arguments.

The debate echoes discussions about the balance between freedom and security, exemplified by El Salvador under President Bukele. Bukele faces criticism for concentrating executive power and implementing exceptional security measures, yet millions of Salvadorans perceive improved daily life due to reduced violence, justifying his popular support. This raises a crucial question for Ecuador: If a democracy temporarily concentrates power to overcome an exceptional crisis, legitimacy hinges on exceptional results and maintaining integrity, free from conflicts of interest.

Exceptional measures should never become permanent, nor rely solely on trust in the leader. They must be justified by outcomes, operate within the rule of law, and be guided by the honesty of those in power. In Ecuador, the article implies, these conditions are not being met.