Ecuador Decides: Constitutional Reforms, Controversies, and Democratic Future
Ecuador faces a decisive presidential runoff that could dramatically redefine its political path. Incumbent Daniel Noboa battles challenger Luisa González, with the very framework of the nation’s Constitution at stake in a contest shaping the country’s immediate future and beyond.
The Referendum’s Undercurrents
When Ecuadorians head to the polls for the second round of their presidential election, they will effectively be voting on more than just which candidate will lead the nation. On one side stands incumbent President Daniel Noboa, seeking reelection and promising to overhaul the Montecristi Constitution of 2008. On the other is Luisa González, a standard-bearer of the political movement known as “correísmo,” who has expressed far less interest in constitutional reinvention. In many ways, the race between Noboa and González is a referendum on whether Ecuador should preserve the existing constitutional framework—associated with former President Rafael Correa—or embark on a new path altogether.
During his year and a half in office, Noboa has made no secret of his ambition to rewrite Ecuador’s foundational legal document. He credits the Montecristi Constitution for empowering the Correa administration from 2007 to 2017 but also blames it for limiting Ecuador’s economic flexibility today. On the campaign trail, Noboa has argued that a new constitutional model is essential to further liberalize the economy, strengthen internal security, and modernize government structures. Opponents, including González, suggest these aims mask a broader intention to undermine certain social protections and democratic checks—concerns that have become central to the public debate.
Yet it is not only politicians and scholars who sense the magnitude of this decision. Ecuadorians from diverse walks of life are weighing how a constitutional rewrite might affect their daily experiences, from employment opportunities to national security. The upcoming vote, in essence, intersects with broader questions of sovereignty, economic development, and social welfare. While the election’s immediate outcome will determine which candidate holds power, it will also dictate whether the country’s highest legal framework remains intact or heads for a transformative overhaul.
President Noboa has already tested the waters of constitutional change through a referendum held in 2024. His administration secured popular support for new security measures aimed at countering organized crime, a scourge that has grown alarmingly in recent years. These approved changes allow Ecuador’s Armed Forces to conduct operations against criminal organizations without a declared state of emergency, authorize the extradition of Ecuadorian citizens wanted by foreign courts, and enable law enforcement to repurpose confiscated arms for their own use.
Critics argue that these amendments were rushed and lacked robust public dialogue. Nevertheless, their passage reflects a national sentiment that tougher security policies are urgently needed. Organized crime syndicates have gained ground, fueled by drug trafficking routes and a strained security apparatus. Noboa’s central pledge is that a new constitution would build on these measures, solidifying the state’s capacity to respond decisively to criminal threats. He has also floated the possibility of allowing foreign military bases in Ecuador—another highly controversial prospect.
In 2009, shortly after Correa took office, the United States military vacated its base in Manta following a constitutional prohibition on foreign bases. Noboa contends that this shift created a vacuum, emboldening traffickers who then had freer rein along the country’s Pacific coast. Advocates of repealing the ban say that welcoming foreign military assistance, presumably from the United States, could tip the scales in Ecuador’s fight against powerful drug networks. Meanwhile, supporters of González see foreign bases as an infringement on national sovereignty. They insist that bolstering Ecuador’s own military and law enforcement capacity is preferable to outsourcing security to any external power.
González’s allies in the correísmo movement underscore that the Montecristi Constitution enshrines principles of independence and national dignity, which they believe are non-negotiable. They caution that if Noboa’s proposed reforms go too far, Ecuador could lose a vital aspect of its identity—one that prioritizes self-determination and mistrusts foreign intervention. The electorate, therefore, must consider whether a new constitution is truly the necessary solution or whether it risks discarding key achievements from the past.
The Constitution at the Center
At the heart of the debate lies the 2008 Montecristi Constitution, a document hailed in some quarters for recognizing the rights of nature and enhancing the visibility of marginalized communities. It also broadened executive powers, enabling Correa to enact sweeping policies. While opponents often criticize that concentration of authority, defenders credit the constitution for spurring progressive reforms in healthcare, education, and social security.
Noboa, having governed since November 2023, maintains that while the Montecristi Constitution was initially progressive, it now hinders Ecuador’s ability to adapt to changing realities. He has dismissed any suggestion of replicating Correa’s approach to constitutional reform, instead promising a more “agile” and “inclusive” process. However, questions linger about how transparent such an effort would be, what guarantees there might be for public input, and whether indigenous communities could protect their territorial and environmental rights.
During the 2024 referendum, Noboa did experience one setback: voters rejected a proposal to allow hourly labor contracts. This defeat underscores that while the populace may support tougher anti-crime tactics, there are limits to how far they are willing to go in reshaping labor regulations. Such resistance highlights the complexity of rewriting fundamental rules. A broader constitutional rework could stumble upon various contested issues, including the role of indigenous consultation rights, the scope of environmental protections, and the structural independence of the judiciary.
A new constitution might also revisit the structure of the country’s social security system. Noboa has repeatedly signaled dissatisfaction with the Ecuadorian Social Security Institute (IESS), pointing to the system’s financial strains. He perceives a connection between labor market flexibility, increased employment, and a broader base of contributions that could stabilize IESS. But if such changes appear to roll back worker protections or indigenous autonomy, resistance may intensify.
Economic Prospects and Private Investment
One of Noboa’s central promises is to attract more private investment in “strategic sectors,” including electricity generation, mining, and possibly oil. Electricity shortages in the past year have underscored the fragility of Ecuador’s power grid, which is heavily reliant on hydropower. A severe drought tested the system’s limits, forcing daily blackouts of up to fourteen hours in parts of the country. Noboa attributes these failings to underinvestment and cumbersome state control, making a compelling case for partial privatization or public-private partnerships.
In the mining sector, a wave of projects led predominantly by Canadian companies stands poised for expansion if regulations ease. Ecuador, whose vast mineral deposits remain largely untapped, is considered a new frontier. The government envisions mining profits supplanting diminishing oil revenues, ensuring a steady flow of foreign currency. Yet, development in this sphere faces deep-seated opposition from indigenous communities, who fear the environmental and cultural repercussions of large-scale extractive ventures.
Noboa’s critics warn that accelerating these projects without thorough consultations risks social conflict. They call for stronger environmental safeguards, robust review of foreign investors’ commitments, and strict compliance with constitutional guarantees around indigenous rights. González has aligned with these concerns, urging a cautious approach to resource extraction and a recommitment to the constitutional principles established in 2008.
Indigenous Rights, Consultation, and Social Tensions
The crux of the mining debate links closely to indigenous rights and the concept of prior consultation. The Montecristi Constitution famously enshrined Ecuador’s multicultural identity, affirming collective rights for indigenous groups and recognizing the legal personhood of nature. Indigenous organizations, therefore, regard any constitutional overhaul as a potential threat to these landmark provisions.
Numerous proposed mining projects have been delayed by lawsuits citing the lack of adequate prior consultation. Indigenous groups argue that their consent is rarely sought in good faith, leading to decisions that undermine their territories and ecosystems. Despite any official pledges, tensions escalate whenever corporate interests appear to supersede ancestral claims. Gonzáles, mindful of this constituency, promises to uphold their concerns if elected, ensuring that indigenous communities remain integral to any strategic conversations about resource management.
Conversely, Noboa frames resource development as a path to economic prosperity—one that can fund public services, reduce unemployment, and mitigate the fiscal burdens plaguing Ecuador. He contends that indigenous communities could benefit from royalties, jobs, and infrastructural improvements arising from responsible mining. Proposals for a new constitutional framework, as he envisions it, might alter consultation mechanisms to streamline investment. This possibility, however, raises alarms among indigenous leaders who prefer to reinforce, rather than weaken, these existing safeguards.
As voters prepare to decide between Noboa’s reelection and González’s potential presidency, they are also poised to shape the scope of indigenous rights for decades to come. This choice resonates in rural highland villages and Amazonian communities, where resource extraction poses existential dilemmas. For the broader population, the question becomes whether the promise of a stronger economy and safer streets justifies reconfiguring elements of Ecuador’s legal bedrock.
In the end, Ecuador’s presidential runoff represents a high-stakes confrontation over competing visions for the nation’s direction. A Noboa victory would likely set the stage for drafting an all-new constitution—a swift, potentially controversial process that might transform everything from security policies to labor laws and environmental regulations. A González administration, meanwhile, would probably retain much of the Montecristi Constitution, albeit with selective tweaks.
Neither option comes without uncertainty. Latin America’s historical experience with constitutional change demonstrates that rewriting fundamental legal frameworks can create both opportunities for renewal and risks of political disruption. Ecuador’s electorate, fully aware of these trade-offs, is being asked to chart a course that may have lasting effects on governance, social justice, and national identity.
Also Read: Mexican Narco Ballads: Visa Revocation, Monsters and the Glorification Debate
Ultimately, the runoff’s outcome will define the balance between preserving the gains of the past and embracing the reforms of the future. In a nation where political currents run deep and civic engagement is strong, this election transcends ordinary campaign rhetoric. It speaks to the essence of how Ecuadorians want their society structured, their resources managed, and their freedoms safeguarded. For better or worse, the choice they make this Sunday could echo across the Andean valleys and coastal plains long after the ballots are counted—reshaping the country’s constitutional soul in the process.
