Not over yet

AFTER being trapped for hours in a hospital during a police mutiny last September, Rafael Correa, Ecuador’s president, bet much of his political capital on an attempt to shore up his power through a constitutional referendum. On May 7th, he put to voters a package of ten amendments that would allow him to increase his control over the courts and media. The early results suggested a split decision, with most of the proposals narrowly passing but two key measures falling short. However, towards the end of the drawn-out vote-counting process, the Yes camp pulled ahead on both questions. Its lead held up: the National Electoral Council (CNE) announced on May 19th that all nine amendments put to a national vote had been approved, albeit mostly by very slim margins. (The final question, on whether to ban killing animals for public entertainment, was settled at the local level).

The opposition has cried fraud, and filed hundreds of legal appeals. Its leaders have honed in on low-income neighbourhoods in Guayaquil, the country’s biggest city, as the likely site of the government’s mischief. Many polling stations there reported more than the maximum of 400 voters. Electoral officials have argued the numbers were caused by high turnout from the police and army. But Martha Roldós, an opposition leader, notes that the rolls from those locations include high numbers of women. Even one of the CNE’s directors, Marcia Caicedo, has accused her colleagues of favouring the government and dragging its feet on the opposition’s complaints. Mr Correa’s rivals say they hope their appeals will at least delay the publication of the official results of the referendum and the implementation of its most controversial measures.

The president, by contrast, has focused on locking in his tenuous gains, touting the outcome as a “ten to zero” landslide. The referendum’s changes to the judiciary will automatically take effect as soon as the CNE releases its final results. But legislative approval is required for its provisions on regulating the media, outlawing “unjustified” wealth, closing for-profit gambling operations and criminalising employers’ failure to register their workers with the social-security service.

The referendum stipulates that those bills be passed “without delay.” However, it is unclear whether Mr Correa, who lacks a congressional majority, can force lawmakers to vote for them. Although he has the right to dissolve Congress, doing so would require him to stand for re-election as well—a highly unpopular move in a country that has had to vote every seven months on average since November 2006. Instead, he is threatening to try to have legislators who vote against the package dismissed for dereliction of duty—a tactic he used successfully in 2007 against lawmakers who opposed a referendum on a new constitution—and to have the Constitutional Court write the laws itself. There is little hope of legislative compromise: the president recently said he would refuse to negotiate with groups seeking the “submission” of the government, and has vetoed such deals in the past. He has enough support in congress to block any attempt to override his veto.

No matter how many of the referendum’s measures are approved, Mr Correa’s bid to use it to strengthen his political position has come up short. Just one of the ten questions got over 50% support; given the numbers of blank or spoiled votes, the rest merely obtained a plurality. And although he remains broadly popular, his approval ratings have been in steady decline this year. If the populist president really wants to firm up his hold on power, he will need to campaign less and govern more effectively.