These are days of uncertainty. This is reflected in financial indicators such as country risk, magnified by political factors reflected in the open struggle between the executive and the assembly. Less is explained by economic indicators, as tax collection falls, while sales growth is maintained. In this scenario of financial and political uncertainty, fragile economic growth does not seem sustainable.

Uncertainty appears to be holding back the execution of public spending to meet the majority’s demands for health, education and infrastructure. Postpone investments that would stimulate economic growth and employment in all sectors of the economy. In addition, it urges those who fear being targeted by crime to hide or emigrate. Will we be able to replace the visions and strategies of the extremes in conflict with an integrative vision that dilutes the culture of confrontation? Can we reinvent the governance model to turn around the almost lost battles against security, drug trafficking and poverty? Can this be achieved without political transitions?

The answers to these three questions will probably be negative. Let there be a consolidation of the development management model in the near future, in which financial and political uncertainty is maintained amid the constant insecurity of citizens. A fragile and non-transparent model of development, in which the criminal economy and the money that comes from it would be more and more important as a source of liquidity for an increasing number of sectors. However, the chances of getting affirmative answers to the above questions, although small, do exist. For this, the issues that should replace the current confrontation and this stubborn uncertainty must be put at the center of the national debate.

First, to recognize that the previous rules of the game between the state and society are outdated considering the speed of changes in the demands and expectations of citizens and pressure groups. That the only way leads through minimal agreements, which can innovate relations between the state and society. So we can count on an efficient and effective state, neither minimal nor gigantic, a leader of development, an inclusive articulator of the economic and social achievements of all Ecuadorians. That it is capable of making information transparent for correct decisions by public and private actors in favor of economic growth, social inclusion and environmental sustainability.

Then, that we know how to recognize the transnational problems that affect us and that we can articulate transnational solutions to combat them. That with patriotism, pragmatism and technological innovation we configure the conditions in which the administration of justice, the control of citizen security and the control of money laundering in Ecuador can be reinvented.

Let there be a sufficient number of honest, capable and courageous Ecuadorians directing such minimal arrangements. May this Ecuador, which has always been divided, enter the train of social and sustainable progress that seems to be calling us for the last time. (OR)