“Rigged opinion polls, anti-democratic conditions, errors of strategy, dirty campaigning and the electoral dynamics of recent history are the big areas of variables that allow us to understand…how a fraudulent legitimisation of neo-liberalism and authoritarianism in Ecuador was manufactured.”
These are the words of the sociologist Agustín Burbano referring to Ecuador’s recent presidential election which caused surprise due to the size of the margin the incumbent won by, despite expectations of a close race. As a result, there are now allegations of irregularities and possible fraud.
Beyond the denouncements and hypotheses, there are questions in the air over whether Daniel Noboa’s victory was legal, clean and fair. Many people question his triumph, although others – within and outside Ecuador – have recognised it and congratulated him. Official data from the National Electoral Council (CNE) states that the leader Daniel Noboa won with over 55% of the vote compared to the 44% achieved by Luisa González, the candidate for the Citizens’ Revolution (RC).
A substantial difference, especially as pre-election polls pointed to a stalemate, very similar to what happened in the first round of voting on 9th February when the difference between the two contenders was merely 0.17%.
On the day of the run-off, Sunday 13th April, while pro-government supporters celebrated, González, a representative of correismo (a brand of progressive, democratic politics) rejected the result and denounced a process plagued with irregularities.
The communicator and sociologist Irene León suggests that the fraud goes beyond the vote itself and includes extra-electoral events, one of which is that Noboa never asked for the licence to campaign that the law demands, while the CNE did not take the necessary measures regarding this failure.
Noboa decided, as it suited him, when he was the president and when he was a candidate, notes León who also denounces the use of public funds for electioneering and the demands on the media by the executive’s national channels during the campaign and also during the period of electoral silence. In her opinion, there was a succession of things between the election being called and the actual day of the vote that point to irregularities in the process. However, she considers that the weightiest aspect that will confirm manipulation is the digitalisation of ballot papers and documents. She highlights the need for an audit of the entire digital electoral system.
Added to this is the fact that 24 hours before the ballot, the executive declared a state of exception in seven of the country’s provinces and two municipalities, including the capital, restricting public meetings and protests until the middle of June and eliminating the right to privacy of communications.
Another novelty in this election was the banning of the use of mobile phones at polling stations, something which in the opposition’s judgement prevented possible anomalies being registered, though the executive and the CNE say it was a measure to prevent extorsion.
Other things that could have influenced the process are last-minute changes to polling stations on the basis of flooding in predominantly RC-supporting areas and the suspension of the vote for Ecuadorians in Venezuela. Beyond these facts, what is striking is the statistical leap between the first and second rounds. The support for González from the indigenous leader and former presidential candidate Leonidas Iza, who obtained 5% of the votes in the first round, should have helped increase backing for the opposition contender, along with the unity of other organisations from the left and centre.
However, her result was practically the same, whereas Noboa gained almost a million and a half additional votes compared to the first round.
Analysts believe that the pact between Pachakutik, the indigenous movement’s political wing, and correismo possibly did not convince the grass roots due to the historic tensions between the two groups.
The CNE is due to announce the results in the next few hours and then the period for formal challenges will open.
González, based on a report by observers from the Organisation of American States (OAS), stated on her X account that there were “irregularities throughout the electoral process and we are going to present proof of manipulation of ballot papers”. Among the findings, the candidate mentioned “multiple versions of ballot papers that were modified by the CNE itself”, alterations of absenteeism, unsigned ballot papers and totals that do not coincide with the number of voters. “We have 1,984 ballot papers without co-signatures. This violates article 127 of the Democratic Code and they should be declared null and void,” she said.
She also referred to “an unusual reduction in the number of spoilt ballot papers registered, which points to the possible direct manipulation of over 150,000 papers”. PL
(Translated by Philip Walker – Email: philipwalkertranslation@gmail.com) – Photos: pixabay
.jpg)
