Noboa-Abad case: the cracks in the relations between presidents and vices

Abad is confined in Israel by a decree from Noboa, who sent her there as an “ambassador” to mediate the conflict between Israel and Palestine. A function that, of course, is impossible to fulfill. The president did so taking advantage of the gray areas of the Ecuadorian Constitution that allow him to decide the functions that whoever occupies the Vice Presidency will fulfill. And he took a radical measure: he sent her as far away as possible, from where Abad cannot return without permission from the Ecuadorian Foreign Ministry.

The relationship between Noboa and Abad was born out of electoral convenience, but today it is completely broken. And no one should be surprised: there are almost no photos of the two; much less are there records of any common meeting or agenda. And now Noboa is moving to get rid of Abad because, if he wants to be re-elected in 2025 (which everyone discounts), he should hand over control to her 45 days before the elections. Something that Noboa does not want to fulfill even remotely. He then pressures her to resign.
A situation like that of Ecuador It is not strange in Latin America. The institution of the Vice Presidency has been and is a source of political conflict in almost all countries, except in Mexico and Chile, in whose constitutions this figure does not exist.

So is the vice presidency a useless position? Why do almost all Latin American countries include it in their institutional arrangements?

Those who consider him expendable remember that his only natural purpose is to replace the president in the event of a vacancy. In some cases they add functions, whether delegated by each president (as in Ecuador) or established in the Constitution.
That is, the vice president is a true “substitute” in the Government. A weakness that has, paradoxically, a great strength: the president cannot dismiss him, because that function falls to exclusively in Congress.

In this legal ambiguity, the position has not stopped generating political conflicts in our region. An account made by researcher Ariel Sribman lists that, of the 21 interrupted presidencies in Latin America between 1978 and 2016, only in 12 cases did the vice president later assume the top position (such as Michel Temer in Brazil when he replaced Dilma Rousseff). That is, in almost half of the cases (43%) the vice presidency did not serve its main purpose.

Furthermore, the academic recalls that in 94% of Latin American countries with a vice presidency, conflicts linked to this position have arisen on at least one occasion during the elections. last two decades.

For the Ecuadorian constitutionalist Ximena Ron, the Vice Presidency “in practical terms is not of much use because this replacement can be done through other figures. In fact, the Constitution itself provides for it, since the president can appoint his most trusted minister in the event of a temporary absence, which is more logical. The lawyer also highlights that, at least in her country, “on very few occasions has a perfect formula been seen between the president and the ‘vice’. There has always been some tense relationship between them, which makes the ‘vice’ a kind of threat for most.”

It is like sleeping with the enemy, according to this conspiratorial vision of the vice presidency, embodied in someone who is always on the lookout to occupy the position of his “boss.” But Julio Cobos, vice president of Argentina between 2007 and 2011, thinks differently. He can attest to the conflictive nature of this position: six months after taking office, President Cristina Kirchner condemned him to ostracism because he – as president of the Senate, the second role that the ‘vice’ has in the country – voted for a law against the will of the Government.

For Cobos, who decided not to resign from office despite the internal war declared by Kirchnerism, the Vice Presidency is “important”. And with the lessons that his time in that role left him, he proposes that the ‘vice’ be chosen by the senators: “To have the respect and support of the Senate and to be another senator whose turn it is to vote in certain circumstances, when want and not only in the event of a tiebreaker, as our Constitution provides today.” Thus, “it would not be confused with the double function of belonging to the Executive Branch and of being at the same time presiding over another, c“This is what the Legislative Power is like.”

In recent decades, as they gained social demands, women also gained more places in politics. And just as they became president, they have also done so in the vice presidency.

Currently, in addition to Abad, Victoria Villarruel is ‘vice’ in Argentina; Francia Márquez, in Colombia; Beatriz Argimón, in Uruguay; Karin Herrera, in Guatemala, and Raquel Peña, in
the Dominican Republic. To them we must add Delcy Rodríguez and Rosario Murillo in the dictatorships of Venezuela and Nicaragua, respectively. She was also vice president, the current president of Peru, Dina Boluarte, qwho assumed power after the dismissal of Pedro Castillo in 2022.

In some of the cases mentioned, conflict between the vice presidents and the presidents is the order of the day. And more than because of the battle of the sexes, because of the institutional design itself: the (and the) ‘vices’ are conceived as guarantors of stability and political continuity, which causes continuous sparks in the face of some presidential decisions that – they feel – both should agree on. .

We must not forget that the vice presidency is a figure originating in the United States Constitution that Latin American countries adopted throughout the 19th century. The curious thing is that it has rarely been a source of conflict there, despite the fact that it has the same function.

The reason may lie in the institutional stability that the Americans have displayed, but also in the very design of the United States political system – as highlighted by Ximena Ron – where the vice president is nominated by his party in the primaries. This gives greater political support and, in turn, loyalty to the force (Democratic or Republican) that put him there alongside the president. On the other hand, in our countries “it is common for the leader or leader of the party to name himself as a candidate and choose the vice president with the same unorganized criteria,” completes the constitutionalist.

For his part, Arturo Ramos, director of the Center for Legal Research and Informatics of Mexico, explains American stability in “traditions” and “political culture.” “Over many decades there has been collaboration (of the vice presidency)”; On the other hand, “in the Latin American world, countries that have this figure see it as a source of obstacles,” he maintains.

For this reason, this Mexican expert supports that his country banished the position more than a century ago, in 1917, after a long and violent series of political confrontations. “That we do not have the vice presidency seems to me to have favored greater stability,” says Ramos. And he justifies it by “eliminating outright the possibility of a possible vice president occupying the presidency, he has saved a lot of trouble.”

If in cases like Mexico (and Chile) there are enough elements to not have vice presidents, why do the vast majority of Latin American nations insist on this figure? Ron reiterates that “in practical terms it is not of much use, because this replacement can be done through other figures that the Constitution itself provides.”

In the same sense, for Ramos “he is no longer a figure that responds to current needs.” And in line with his Ecuadorian colleague, he maintains that “when we find other models to replace the president, one of the first functions that the vice presidency can have is blurred.”

However, returning to the North American case, he says that “there is a certain usefulness from the electoral point of view. That is, the vice presidency often serves to attract votes for a candidate on the ticket. Kamala Harris, being the vice presidential candidate with Joe Biden, had to attract the vote that at some point moment Oba
ma got.”

In this case, the vice presidency could be a “necessary evil” for the internal democracy of the parties. This is in line with the academic Sribman, who speaks of the “unnecessary” evil of vice presidents in his analysis and maintains – supported by figures – that political systems without vice presidency guarantee with equal effectiveness the succession and continuity of the Executive, regardless of the conflict associated with that.

But let’s close better with the word of a former vice president. For Cobos, the discussion is not about the existence of the position, but about the necessary coexistence with the president. “You have to understand that it is a relationship of two. And the one who has the most vocation to maintain this good relationship is the president. Giving room to the vice president when he is absent from the country, and also the power and trust that he needs.”

LEONARDO OLIVA

CONNECTS (**)