It is a great opportunity that we have, and a great responsibility too, for we are drafting the constitution of our republic. There is no doubt that the several unsuccessful attempts to a new start have marked this very important and meaningful duty as vain or pointless. Yet, if our objective is to succeed, not only as a political party, or an ideological movement, but as a democracy, as a culture, as an independent sovereign nation, we must make of this constitution the solid building block for our nation to grow on. And as such, this constitution must not represent the ideology of the present, the convictions of the few, or the beliefs of the many. We must not let the constitution become a mere code of conduct, a cloud of disperse petitions, or a long list of acknowledgments of disparity.

The noble project, the creation of our constitution, must look deeper into who we are as a people and outline the best project for our future. We must stand back and ask ourselves, who are we, as Ecuadorians. What is it that draws us together and what do we want for our future. We must make of this constitution a guarantee that the conditions of this project will be possible. Still, we have to understand that it will not be perfect, and we must allow for evolution. We have to realize that the constitution will be undoubtedly impregnated with our temporal views, our preconceived ideas, our conventions; it will be intrinsically a product of our time, which will necessarily need to be perfected in the future.

The inclusion of a God, any god, as well as a specific culture, a political agenda, an architectural style, or a soccer team, severely undermines the project of the constitution itself, and its effectiveness as the building block of our future. Furthermore, including this kind of agenda in the constitution will inescapably alienate a portion of the constituents and will forevermore harm their relationship with the republican process… once again.

It certainly does not help that the maximum exposure of this undefined ideology are such divisive figures. However, there is a lack of an open and honest dialogue about the basic principles of what this Socialism of the XXI Century suposedly purports. This is a mistake in the parts of their leaders, but it does not undermine the movements value as a powerful agent of change. In fact, we can analyze, not its rhetoric, but its actions, and its early results. Or rather, analyze its rhetoric in the function of what it has produced.

I suspect we might find that the plea of this not-so-silent revolution is equality. Yet this plea for equality comes not from ideological abstractions from an ideological elite, but from a pragmatic community collectively working for what it claims it deserves. The face of constitutional changes and indignant dissent to the status quo is powered by a largely deprived and easily forgotten citizenry. A citizenry that simply demands to have fair and equal access to their own government, their own institutions, schools, resources, their country. The same citizenry in whose determination lies the authority of these institutions. They are demanding their right to these institutions which have been granted to them by all of the constitutions drafted before, and the ones that probably will be drafted in the future.

As a service to their own revolution, the leaders should learn how to pick their battles and fight for their ideals. However, making sure that the principles for which they are fighting be disseminated is important. Knowing that their fight is noble and possible is an incredible incentive.