Politicized politics, the horror: CONAIE

CONAIE has been a leading actor in several of the social achievements of Ecuador.

Justify at any rate

The Ecuadorian government has shown great imagination in finding justifications for its actions. Even without hesitation in contradictions, making paper last longer than necessary and the presidential word becoming specialized in stretching words beyond their meanings.

In its first Water Law, for example, the preamble took up the Constitution, but contradictorily in its articles it justified the concession of the water service so that Guayaquil would remain untouched.

In its failed Labor Codes, labor relations were made more flexible – according to neoliberal guidelines – and it was intended to justify this by selling, in so many words, access to social security for housewives, or a very hypothetical indefinite employment contract, which, moreover, contradicts its policies of international openness.

In the case of Yasuní (ITT), the unreasonableness surpassed all logic of reason, a reason was sold and then the unreasonableness was blamed on others.

These are justifications made on demand, which, by means of State Propaganda, partially hide what is unjustifiable in relation to their own speeches.

CONAIE and contestatory action

But the decision to expel CONAIE from the premises given on loan does not fit in with the justifications. Of course, we agree with Correa that it is necessary to abandon all paternalism with CONAIE and with the indigenous people. In fact, there should not be any paternalism, with whomever, nor the use of paternalistic discourse for any purpose; it would be good, therefore, to review the practices of political clientelism (with favors for those who have voted for AP, for example) that are now growing with the already pompous electoral campaign for 2017.

The more the government argues and invents justifications to take away the premises from CONAIE, the more noticeable is its policy of repression,

The Correa government found it convenient reasons to strip/require the CONAIE house. Photo: Carlos Granja.

gloved or not, the social organizations that do not share their positions are growing.

His desire to have no obstacles to re-election in 2017, a political scene without critical opponents and with a public audience, is now leading him to take more repressive measures that contradict his own speeches, so that in two or three years the propaganda will have already sown oblivion.

Of course, with or without a local, CONAIE will continue, even more so now that its actions and those of various social organizations such as unions or environmentalists have demonstrated the legitimacy of the protest and above all of its positions.

In this context, social conflict, even if it is sought to be prevented from being expressed, ends up involving more people. It is now noticeable that the rejection of government policies or actions attracts more people, from all social sectors, despite the impressive acceptance of Correa and his government. In contrast to what has happened in previous years of government, the expression of differences and discontent is multiplying, the halo that this was impossible has been broken, and this happens above the immense government propaganda.

Ecuadorian society, although a huge sector of the population follows the government's guidelines of making it passive, depoliticized and conservative, has an increasingly important sector of the population and of what remains of civil society that, on the other hand, is becoming more active. This should lead the government to review its policy towards civil society and its way of governing, otherwise it will have no choice but to increase repression, with the consequent loss of prestige.

An authoritarian system and depoliticization of society

But the action of depriving CONAIE of its premises clearly reveals an attitude not only of repression and blackmail but of defiance and cruelty, which will intensify indignation. It will be a response to the non-physical violence (for now) that this decision implies - but how incisive - and the insistent presidential speeches about not fearing indigenous leaders. Indignation is a powerful impulse for greater organization, action and disqualification of the government.

Why is the government seeking this provocation?
It is not logical if one were to think of a government that wants to consolidate society or to have an active society that shares its positions or at least the meaning of its action; because pluralism should be well assimilated as a current practice in politics and in social life. Furthermore, the action of the government would be more legitimized if there were no attacks on pluralism, on the right to difference; it would make it sustainable, long-lasting and not just acceptable to Correa.

The government's justifications for demanding that CONAIE hand over its premises and the eventual repression for complying with its demand, clearly reveal Correa's authoritarian vision as he persists in his action of distracting civil society from burning issues with these gestures and in promoting a depoliticized policy for citizens.

Indeed, if we follow the presidential arguments, there would be no room for social organizations, citizens, or journalists who express “political” positions, but rather support for the government or silence. Politics is understood to be a definition or position or action in relation to collective life, not just governmental life, which should be inherent to every being in society. It is assumed that what is convenient is for citizens to express themselves, with positions and actions, not only on what the government proposes but following their options in relation to their problems, dreams, and visions of society. It is the hope of democrats to have such a society.

How could there be a CONAIE that does not speak out about government policies?
One of the historic achievements of Ecuadorian society has been to advance towards the political inclusion of indigenous peoples, erasing the colonial legacy, and CONAIE has been a leading actor in this process. How can CONAIE not be political? The non-authoritarian left, as a supplement, has promoted an informed, thinking, active, participative, organized citizenry that, through its action, is a counterweight to the powers, not only the political but also the powers that be. And in the case of having a leftist government or governments, to build a way of thinking and life practices (social hegemony) that leads society towards greater justice, equity and freedom, precisely in opposition to the powers that be, to a system of oppression or exploitation and to conservative ideas.

But this would be achieved through pluralism, through diversity if you like, and not necessarily through support for that government. This presupposes an autonomous civil society, not subject to any power.

The policy of Correa's government, on the other hand, is different and the presidential discourse is in line with this. It multiplies the explanations that if one "does politics", such as not sharing his positions, it is a "partisan" action only good for parties or professional politicians.

Everything would have a convenient little box. It is difficult not to remember the very corporate Mussolini. Thus, if one “does politics” it should inevitably be done in a party and one should have the right to speak if one wins the elections; if not, one has the right to remain silent.

Correa believes that CONAIE broke the “concession agreement” that allowed it to have the premises, because “it is only for social-organizational activities. …(but) it has been used for political activities, in opposition to the Government… they have opposed all of the Government’s policies… they are out of place” (Enlace ciudadano, 20 Dec/2014).

In short, it would be unacceptable for a social organization to “get political,” such as in the case of not agreeing with the government, for example, on open-pit mining or oil extraction in the Yasuní (ITT), as CONAIE does and which annoys the government. The only option would be depoliticization, leaving politics to professionals, the rest should follow the government or live in silence.

Furthermore, the ideal society that is repeatedly proposed

The CONAIE building is a symbol of  popular struggles.

Correa is a government that defines what is best for society – technocratically defined – and a society that supports it. The role of the former is to command and order, and of society to obey and respect that order. Those who do not share his positions have the right to the other little box, called the opposition, that is, they have to join the opposition.

And in the meantime? There is no civil society. There would be no room for an active and organized society. It would be a great nebula of supporters or silent ones. That is why participation, which raised so much hope at the beginning of the government - in that left that was closer to civil society than in the partisan left, stuck in Marxism and 19th century ideas - is now a matter of the "socialization" of what the government does.

That is to say, a one-way communication, from power to the nebula of supporters, not from beings who would have their own or different dynamics and thoughts. Is the conservative restoration moving forward? Not only that, but it is taking root. Following Correa's patterns of behavior, of pressure or blackmail to achieve something, one could think - as do some left-wing sectors that remain in AP - that a negotiation between CONAIE and the government should be reached or that it is seeking a negotiation on their differences between the government, but it can already be seen that what is at stake is whether or not to accept a type of government and the role of civil society. How difficult it is to negotiate principles!

PS In a speech at the inauguration of the new AP leaders (Thursday, December 18, 2014), the President, in summary, argued that “we received more support and votes than Pachakutik,” which meant that, since the indigenous people were mostly with the government, CONAIE hypothetically lost its right to speak as a representative of the indigenous people. Several previous governments could have said the same, of course.

A summary of this text was published in EL COMERCIO, on December 29, 2014