Last week, President Rafael Correa presented 10 questions in a consulta popular (“popular consultation” [es]), a referendum which amends several areas of the Constitution. The Latin American Herald Tribune explains:

This consulta will consist of 10 questions, ranging from opinions on the treatment of animals and gambling to constitutional changes such [as] support for changes to the Corte Consticional [Constitutional Court] and the proposed controversial Ley Orgánica de Comunicación, Libertad de Expresión y Aceso a la Información Pública [The Organic Law of Communication, Freedom of Expression and Access to Public Information]

The organism in charge of deciding the constitutionality of the process is the recently created Constitutional Court, which still struggles to get recognition as a legally seated body after its automatic self-appointment to the Court back in October 28, 2008. The Constitutional Court has 45 days to qualify the constitutional validity of the questions.

Reactions from the blogosphere

Correa declared that the main goal is to bolster the justice system's ability to fight crime, but José J. Zurita Andrade of Ces’t la Vie [es], who has read the 10 questions, does not see it that way:

1) No es una consulta que resuelve los temas de inseguridad, como se dijo que era el objetivo inicial; 2) votar NO en la consulta, no es votar en contra de Correa es votar a favor de la libertad individual de escoger, de triunfar o fracasar, de hacer el bien o hacer el mal.

Another well know blogger, Pitonizza [es], reflects on several areas of the referendum. She writes about her own experience as an example of why not having social security (IESS [es] by its initials in Spanish) should not be a crime as it is proposed on the referendum:

…Cuando me hice atender en embarazo en el Seguro -por obligación de la empresa en la que laboraba en ese entonces-. No habían ecógrafos, se monitoreaba a mi bebé con una corneta tipo cuernófono picapiedresco. El seguro privado que yo tenía entonces corrió con todos los gastos, venturosamente. Nuevamente, libertad de elección. A quien le parezca bien el IESS que lo elija, y a quien no, no debería ver mermado su sueldo pagando por un seguro que no es de su agrado personal.

In response to a column by Emilio Palacio in the newspaper El Universo [es], blogger Rafael Méndez defends [es] the referendum by clarifying some of Palacio's points. Rafael writes:

- la consulta no es para sacar a correa. Decir o insinuar lo contrario es demostrar mediocridad y mala leche
– efectivamente, se va a modificar la constitución, pero es por temas que tenían cola por culpa de la legislación existente y la constitución anterior”

Ecuadorians don't seem comfortable expressing their thoughts in favor of the referendum, even though 57% of them support it, according to a local pollster. An anonymous reader in the blog Ecuador Ecuatoriano [es] explains why he supports the referendum, in part:

Yo votare SI en la mayoria de las preguntas, no en todas como lo hara la mayoria de los ecuatorianos que NOOOO tienen acceso al internet pero q ya tienen acceso a lo que no tenian antes con Gobiernos en realidad corruptos como los montones de anteriores en la pasada decada

In the same blog another visitor [es] argues that it doesn't matter whether people choose to vote yes or no: Ecuadorians should vote consciously in accordance to their ideals, the readers suggests, because they are all looking to improve individually in order to improve the whole country, and adds:

Creo que el Gobierno ha hecho cosas positivas como ayudar a la educación, a la salud […], el arreglo de carreteras, quitar las tercerizadoras que lo único que hacían es robarle la mitad del sueldo al empleado. Obligar a que los empleadores afilien al IESS a sus empleados (aunque es cierto, el servicio debe mejorar, aún falta pero de poco en poco se lo va logrando con el apoyo de todos los que formarmo este país).

Silvi of Lunas Azules [es] (@silvilunazul) believes that it is unrealistic to completely agree or completely disagree with all the questions. She agrees in part with the referendum, to be precise, with the legislation to protect bulls from suffering in bullfighting:

Para no caer en la contradicción de deberle respeto sólo a quien puede razonar, debemos aceptar que el principio “no hacer sufrir” tiene su base en la capacidad de sentir dolor, no en la de discernir. Siendo así, cualquier especie capaz de sentir dolor tiene intereses, el instinto y el deseo de seguir viviendo y llevar una vida plena, exenta de sufrimiento.

Professor and journalist Ruben Dario Buitron [es] asks a key question on the role of Ecuadorian media in this process: “Take sides or do journalism?”. He writes that it is fundamental that journalists either take a stand on the issue or simply do journalism. Professional media, he argues, should develop a space where all citizens can express themselves, debate, question, and propose ideas. Serene, balanced and fair journalism is what the country needs now, concludes Buitron.

Reactions on Twitter

Ecuadorian Twitter users, through the hashtag #ConsultaEc [es], are also discussing the referendum. Pablo Garzon (@pgarzon), for example, believes,

Al final, RC busca legitimar su popularidad, nuevamente. El pliego de preguntas de la consulta es secundario.

While journalist Belen (@Belenper) thinks that everything is too complicated; she says she doesn't know anything about law and that the questions are not clear enough as to be a referendum.

Rosa María Torres (@rosamariatorres) says she has already made a decision: she will not go to the polls that day and she would rather pay the fine. In Ecuador, voting is mandatory.

No apoyo la #consultaEC convocada por #Correa para enmendar la Constitución recién aprobada. Creo que no votaré. Pagaré la multa. #Ecuador

Carla Bonilla (@CarliBonilla) Tweets an equation that seems to be a general concern among Correa's opposition:

Consulta popular + reformas constitucionales = manipulación total

Correa has recognized that carrying out the referendum is going to be an uphill battle [es], and said the Constitution drafted in Montecristi in 2008 “is extremely good, ” but “if we see that something does not work, the faster you correct it, the better.”