Many explanations have been proposed to explain the endless series of clumsiness of parliamentarians promoting the impeachment of the President of the Republic. The most widespread – and also the most generous to this group – is the one that claims that since the goal is to end the mandate of Guillermo Lasso, and since they supposedly have the necessary votes, they do not have to comply with the legal formalities. As one of the members of the commission established for this said, if it is important to replace him, the reason will be found on the road. Another explanation is the one that claims that all the tangles made by the Commission and its advisers, who were joined by the members of the Administrative Council for Legislation and who had the necessary votes at the plenary session, are the result of a compromise with the Government. In simple words, it would be pure nonsense.

Although the latter seems to be a fallacy in principle, it should not be left aside, since in this way the fundamental motives of a large part of assembly members can be hidden. Despite the prevailing mediocrity, they all know that impeachment of the president is impossible under the current Constitution. This gives the president the power to dissolve the Assembly at any time, even when it is impeaching him. In that case, they would be out of the game and due to their poor performance in this period, they would not have a chance to return to that space. Therefore, the tongo would not have been created in the agreement of some benches with the Government, but in the understandable fear of losing the position with all the advantages and canons that it provides them. That would explain why these people and their advisers failed to develop something reasonably coherent and compliant over the course of several weeks.

If so, most likely the outcome of this episode would be in the Constitutional Court, which would be forced to reject or reject (or some synonym of legal language) a document that would not even serve to approve the first year of the baccalaureate. With this, the groups that embarked on the adventure of impeachment because they believed that the winds were blowing in that direction will try to save their image by declaring that they did their best, but that the Court prevented them from doing so.

All this sounds logical enough, but it is not enough to understand the role of those who judge in this whole series of errors. They led the entire process, they had an absolute majority in the commission that prepared, revised, corrected and buried the document with errors, prevailed in CAL and constituted the first relative majority in the Assembly. All this was driven by its central goal, which is to install a weak government, which can be forced to form the famous truth commission to clear the image of the corrupt. It is therefore difficult to accept that clumsiness comes solely or mainly from an ambition for the constancy of others. It probably remains only to recognize the validity of the principle known as Ockham’s Razor, which asserts that, when faced with two or more conflicting explanations, the appropriate answer is the simplest one. In this case, the answer comes down to one word: mediocrity. (OR