On Sunday, November 16, Ecuador held a popular consultation and a constitutional referendum. It was the seventh vote in just two years, but not just another one. In the country now governed by Daniel Noboa, the package of reforms submitted to the vote implied a 180-degree turn: convening a Constituent Assembly to draft a new Constitution, allowing the installation of foreign military bases, reducing the number of assembly members, and eliminating state funding for political parties. In all four questions, the “No” won decisively, with percentages between 53% and 61%. The most rejected initiatives were the replacement of the current Constitution and the possibility of installing foreign military bases. But beyond the numbers, what message does this resounding victory of the “No” leave behind?
In a country once considered an oasis of calm but now the most violent in the region, the victory of the “No” in last weekend’s referendum and popular consultation surprised those who read the Ecuadorian scenario as a simple referendum on Daniel Noboa’s popularity. The president still enjoys high approval ratings, but a deep analysis of public opinion data, such as the national survey by IPSE Global conducted in October, reveals that the outcome was the chronicle of a foretold defeat—and the culmination of growing tension within an electorate divided between fear of crime and fear of unchecked power.
Noboa came to the presidency with a clear mandate: restore order in a country besieged by drug trafficking. His response—declaring an “internal armed conflict” and implementing a “tough-on-crime” policy with massive militarization—resonated with the public’s cry for action. Although some achievements have been made, especially in drug seizures, the government’s increasing authoritarianism and hardline strategy have led to growing human rights violations and have failed to resolve citizens’ structural problems. Thus, although Ecuadorians support tough security policies, they reject the “Bukelization” of the country and, above all, are unwilling to sign a blank check and hand total power to the president. The survey revealed, for example, that 61.5% of the general population already feels the country is governed through “authoritarian decisions that violate the law.” This latent fear of a style of politics based on unchecked power fueled the “No.”
In a display of political sophistication, the Ecuadorian people distinguished between the government’s actions and the structure of power itself. They handed Noboa a sword to fight crime but refused to give him the pen to rewrite the rules of the democratic game.
The government’s virtual agenda vs. the citizen’s real agenda
Noboa’s government made a fundamental miscalculation: it was overly optimistic and believed its agenda was the people’s agenda. Despite having vast public resources and media support, it pursued a confusing communication strategy and stated that it would only present the details of its constitutional project for the country at a later stage. However, while the president proposed a constitutional debate to redesign the country’s political framework, the public was anchored in far more immediate concerns. The IPSE Global survey revealed that 86.3% of Ecuadorians feel the impact of rising living costs, especially in food and transportation. The economy—not the structure of the state—was their primary anxiety.
Furthermore, the “Yes” campaign underestimated the attachment to the current Ecuadorian Constitution, approved in 2008 with more than 63% of the vote. The Constitution is strong on rights protections and represents a landmark in environmental policy, being the first in the world to incorporate the Rights of Nature. Support for the current Constitution was widespread across various groups, especially among women. With 70.1% of women voters evaluating the Constitution positively, they emerged as the primary guardians of the existing institutional framework. The “No” had a woman’s face—defending rights and a legal framework they feel is their own.
Even the president’s own electoral base was not monolithic. Our most revealing data point was that nearly half of his voters (48.1%) did not hold a negative opinion of the current Constitution. They supported the president but not necessarily his project for a complete overhaul—demonstrating that loyalty to a leader does not imply blind adherence to his agenda. Moreover, while Ecuadorians accept and recognize the importance of international cooperation to combat organized crime, they assume that such cooperation has limits and overwhelmingly reject the installation of foreign military bases in the country: the “No” to this question obtained 60.85% of the vote in the referendum and consultation.
Governance on a tightrope
The results of the recent vote leave Noboa in a position of extreme vulnerability in the medium term. His legitimacy depends almost exclusively on his success in the fight against organized crime. But this is a war of attrition. As shown in a recent report by Crisis Group, violence in the country remains widespread and has evolved, with increases in extortion and kidnappings, while the fragmentation of major criminal gangs has created new and bloody disputes.
If the perception of security deteriorates, Noboa’s political capital will evaporate. Without the security banner and having failed in his attempt to accumulate more power, his government risks becoming an administration without purpose or tools.
The “No” has strengthened a diverse opposition and has provided new tools to the Legislative and Judicial branches to act as firm counterweights. Any attempt to govern by decree or challenge institutional limits— a high-risk path similar to the institutional crises seen in other countries in the region, such as Peru— could trigger widespread distrust among the Ecuadorian population and precipitate a governance crisis.
Despite the multiple crises the country is facing, the victory of the “No” made clear that ideas and values such as democracy, sovereignty, human rights, and the environment continue to hold central importance for Ecuadorians, who demand an effective government—beyond promises—capable of addressing their everyday problems. The security crisis requires not only measures to combat organized crime but also structural reforms in justice, the prison system, social policies, international cooperation, arms control, and criminal financing. At the same time, challenges such as poverty, unemployment, and the deterioration of health and education services can no longer be sidelined.
Autor
Political scientist. Professor of International Relations at Federal Rural University of Rio de Janeiro (UFRRJ). PhD in Political Science from the Complutense University of Madrid.
Executive Director of the IPSE Intelligence research institute. Researcher in public opinion, discursive framing in the media and computer sciences.
