Correa sent a letter dated 9 April to Cordero, the tone of which was nothing short of a reprimand of a disobedient schoolchild. Correa reacted furiously to a series of exhortos (best rendered as “a formal written request”, not an “order”) he said he had received in recent months from the national assembly, calling on him to declare a state of emergency in certain regions to compensate former officials of state institutions or to make retroactive payments to members of the security forces.
“I would like to imagine, Mr president,” Correa wrote “what the reaction of the legislative branch would be if, in my capacity as head of the executive branch, I were to issue decrees exhorting the national assembly to work harder; to stop wasting time in insignificant discussions; to have fewer advisers; to stop issuing resolutions that through their deficient semantic formulation have provoked laughter among the public and a terrible embarrassment; or that its members don’t travel outside of the Republic so often.”
Correa went on to say that Cordero would be incensed and that he felt exactly the same way. He said that legislative exhortos were tantamount to “a gross interference in the functioning of the executive branch of government”. He said that he would simply ignore patently unconstitutional exhortos in future. “The national assembly is going beyond its remit with the exclusive aim of obtaining a false and fraudulent role [it does not have],” Correa added, concluding that, in his opinion, exhortos “reflect the crisis which parliaments are going through [here and around the world], having failed to overcome the period of popular assemblies when they overthrew monarchies.”
Cordero waited eight days before responding to this humiliating public dressing down. In his letter to Correa, dated 17 April, he respectfully argued that “I don’t think it is unacceptable that, in a representative democracy of the 21st century, one of the branches of government requests that another branch look into an issue…the natural function of the national assembly is political control and accountability and not exhortos, although these are a delicate way for parliaments to make announcements,” and draw the executive’s attention to issues it might otherwise miss. He also had the temerity to suggest that not only did many of Correa’s comments show that he was misinformed about the assembly and its work, but also that he had more than likely been influenced by the opposition, which frequently questioned the assembly’s work.
The political opposition, meanwhile, was decidedly unimpressed. It immediately pounced on Cordero for what it described as a mealy-mouthed response, and several deputies called on him to resign for failing to defend the interests of the legislature. Andrés Páez, a deputy for the left-wing Izquierda Democrática (ID), said the assembly needed somebody who stood up more to Correa rather than perpetuating its subordination to the executive. He said it was the first time in history that a head of state had objected to exhortos.
In a later press conference, Cordero was slightly more outspoken, describing Correa’s letter as “discourteous” and arguing that the opposition was managing to reach Correa more effectively than members of his own party. He was also critical of Correa’s decision to issue a total veto to the assembly’s reform of an organic law listing its functions [WR-12-16].
End of preview - This article contains approximately 670 words.
Subscribers: Log in now to read the full article
Not a Subscriber?
Choose from one of the following options
