Once again is Ecuador on the verge of removing a president by means that could be described as constitutional, even if the intent does not quite fit the spirit of the constitution. The opposition, for the second time, is shopping around for formal motives to impeach President Lucio Gutiérrez and trying to firm up the necessary votes to remove him when the process gets under way.
Gutiérrez is at his weakest yet, after the regional and mayoral elections saw his Partido Sociedad Patriótica (PSP) barely scraping past the threshold for retaining its registration (5% of the vote). Of the parties that had helped put him in the presidency, three - headed by the indigenous Pachakutik - have long since left the coalition and gone into outright opposition; they are at the forefront of the current drive to unseat him.
His attempt to boost his strength in congress through an alliance with the Partido Roldosista Ecuatoriano (PRE), which has 15 seats, fell apart because he was unable to deliver on a promise to ensure that its exiled leader, former President Abdalá Bucaram, could return to Ecuador without fear of prosecution on several charges pending.
He came close: in August Gutiérrez quietly met Bucaram in Panama and worked out a formula whereby he would set up a commission of jurists to sort out the exile's problems. This idea was abandoned as soon as Gutiérrez realised that the opposition could use it as a motive - executive interference with the workings of the judiciary - for impeachment.
Gutiérrez has also managed to lose a potential second line of defence: the judiciary. He has attacked the courts, accusing them of subservience to the biggest opposition party, the conservative Partido Social Cristiano (PSC), and going as far as to say that an irate public might end up setting fire to the courtrooms.
This not only earned him a rebuke from the supreme court but has become one of the potential motives for impeachment bandied about by the opposition: his talk about people torching courtrooms being construed as an incitement to violence.
The charge on which most seem to agree is that of misuse of public funds, an accusation construed on the basis of his support for PSP candidates in the recent election campaigns by using such official events as the inauguration of public projects for electioneering. Other charges mooted earlier, such as involvement in shady campaign funding practices (including the alleged receipt of funds from a former governor who has just been convicted of drug trafficking), appear to have fallen by the wayside, mainly because the various opposition parties could not agree on which to use.
One well-known jurist, Eduardo López, has stated publicly that the charge of misuse of public funds would not work because it would have to be based on a finding by the comptroller-general's office, which does not exist. He also believes that the incitement charge is too flimsy to stand. Another expert in constitutional law, Mauricio Gándara, holds the opposite view: the charges, he maintains, are sufficient to set the impeachment process in motion. Gándara has also suggested an additional charge: abandonment of his post (based on Gutiérrez's recent assignation with
Bucaram).
Challenges to the constitutionality of any charges brought against Gutiérrez would have to be decided by the supreme court, where few justices are predisposed in his favour (either because they were insulted by him or because, as he claimed, they follow the lead given by the
PSC).
In any case, precedent suggests that the Ecuadorean congress is not averse to removing presidents on formal charges that would not stand up in a court of law, or even without any at all. Bucaram was voted out of office in 1997 on a charge of mental incapacity which nobody really tried to prove. In 2000, when the military high-command reversed the coup that had unseated President Jamil Mahuad, congress chose not to reinstate Mahuad but to give the job to his vice-president, Gustavo
Noboa.
These episodes were quietly accepted by the OAS. Whether this would happen again given the organisation's more militant frame of mind is unclear: its intervention in Nicaragua
suggests that it might be less tolerant. On the other hand, Ecuador has a Vice-President, Alfredo
Palacio, who has already expressed his willingness to take over should the legislature decide to remove Gutiérrez.
Impeachment, however 'quasi-judicial' its trappings, is an eminently political affair, curbed only by the prospect of public disapproval. The Spanish term for it, juicio político ('political trial'), makes that abundantly clear. In order to initiate proceedings the accusation need only be endorsed by 25 legislators - which the PSC alone has.
As Ecuador has a single-chamber legislature, proceedings can be much swifter than in countries with a bicameral one, where usually the lower chamber acts as the prosecutor and the upper one as the judge. If the speed at which bicameral legislatures in Argentina and Paraguay have dealt with the impeachment of supreme-court justices is indicative of a general trend, an action against Gutiérrez could be very fast indeed.
The only obstacle in the way of the impeachers is that they have not yet ensured the full 67 votes needed to remove Gutiérrez from office. Congressional arithmetic in Ecuador is a complex matter. There are 16 parties represented in congress, of which six have only one seat apiece, and eight seats were won on the tickets of coalitions (of which several have fallen apart). The biggest party, the PSC, commands 26 votes.
At the latest reckoning, published by the newspaper Hoy, the pro-impeachment camp had mustered 63 firm votes, including those of the PSC, Pachakutik, Izquierda Democrática and all the parties with more than one seat save the PRIAN (10), which is standing with the government, and the PRE (15), which has not yet decided where it stands - but might just be angry enough with Gutiérrez for failing to ensure Bucaram's safe return to cast its lot with the outright opposition. Gutiérrez has little chance of mustering enough votes to block impeachment; his only hope is that the impeachers should fail to agree.