By Luis Yerovi Jr.

On November 25, 2002, Ecuadorians awoke to find that the landscape of their country had changed. No, El Reventador had not erupted to once again blanket the country in white ash. This time, the root of the change was a result of human political activity--the democratic election of Col. Lucio Gutierrez as president. Gutierrez, a military man of humble origins and an ex-golpista (coup leader) had been elected President on the backs of Ecuador's indigenous people. Suddenly, the "invisible" (indigenous peoples) became "visible," and for the "visible" (the ruling white minority), their reality became a crowded one.

Since this historic election, apprehension and hope have permeated the air in Ecuador's capital, Quito, mixing with the existing stench of sulfur emanating from El Reventador. What is going to happen now? Will things really change? These are just some of the many questions asked by the weary people of Ecuador, burdened by years of political incompetence and corruption which have rendered their country bankrupt and subject to social chaos.

"Does Col. Gutierrez have the talent, the charisma and the coraje to change the future of Ecuador in a positive manner?"

In the short time which has passed since the elections, many indicators suggest that Gutierrez's term is not going to address the needs of the Ecuadorian majority, especially the forgotten classes that put him in power. Within Ecuador, he faces a legislative branch of government that is still firmly in the hands of an intellectually challenged old guard. These folks refuse to believe that Ecuador is a nonwhite majority country, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary. As a result of these beliefs, they have promised not to cooperate with the new government, dismissing Gutierrez's election as nothing more than a populist victory. This accusation of "populism" is being used by the entrenched politicians to minimize the voice of groups which have been exploited for centuries. Where the logic of the old guard fails is in their inability to differentiate between the "populism" that put Col. Gutierrez in power and the "populism" practiced by Alvaro Noboa or Abdala Bucaram. In this election, the peoples' vote was not a reflection of a na.ve, illiterate belief in sugarcoated promises, but a product of a collective indigenous uprising. This uprising was well-organized, informed and courageous, characteristics lacking among those who pronounce accusations of populism.

Several questions remain to be answered in the next few months. Will Gutierrez stand up to the opposition and push an agenda favoring the forgotten classes? Will he crush the cancer of corruption endemic in Ecuadorian politics? Will he puncture the inflated bureaucracy that asphyxiates Ecuador's monetary reserves? Will he reduce outrageous military spending?

Unfortunately, I have no illusions regarding an unprecedented collaboration amongst Ecuador's politicians for the general well-being of the country. This type of "put our differences aside for the collective good" behavior does not seem to be in the nature of Ecuadorian politicians. As a result, Gutierrez will have to advocate for change largely through the executive branch. However, given his lack of political connections, formal education, training and experience in government leadership, his ability to promote an effective and egalitarian agenda remains suspect.