Chile V Ecuador

As South America has been in the news so much lately, I've had some interesting classes with my students and friends about what it all means. Most every class, lately, has started with "Well, what do you think of the Ecuador situation?" or "Well, what do you think of the Chile situation?" And then based on what my students have told me before, concerning their own beliefs, I try to bring up some aspect of all that has happened every class. Whether it's the political ramifications, or the trials or the police, or the impact of socialism, etc.

Something that's been brewing about in my head is just the stark difference of the news. First, we had Ecuador in the international news. Then Chile. In both situations we had a conflict that needed to be resolved by the government. And in both situations the government was essentially responsible for the conflict. In Ecuador, there are many theories of why the government is responsible but the most grounded one is that Correa just doesn't listen to people and does what he wants no matter what. In Chile, lack of governmental safety regulations essentially makes mining one of the most dangerous professions. I read in one article that the people that live in mining towns that aren't miners, call the miners Kamakazis because so many deaths happen in the mines every year. 

Anyways, what has been interesting to me isn't the conflict but how each were handled by the government. Now clearly I understand that the situations were completely different in reality but there are some similiarities and I think the comparisons that I'm making are fair. 

In a moment of conflict, the Ecuadorian president escalated the chaos, divided the people, and reached far towards the left by closing the media and by toying with dissolving Congress. 

In a moment of conflict, the Chilean president was able to lead calmly and steadily. He was able to include the global community in solving the problem, inspire the international media to cover the story, and give the world a story of hope. 

What I've been thinking about lately is 'why?' Why, in crisis, does Ecuador's Correa act like a baffoon and Chile's Pinera appears like Ghandi or Mother Theresa, calm, cool and collected (might I also add compassionate)? What internal characteristics make the most significant changes? 

I think certainly the economy has a lot to do with it. Chile has one of the most prospering economies in South America. But what else? Is it stability? Leftist tendencies? Tourism? International investment? Personal attitudes of the Chilean people v the Ecuadorian people? 

Clearly my understanding of South American history is lacking. But living here, history is alive and so I need to study more. Which is why I've recently bought The Penguin History of Latin America and Revolution!: South America and the Rise of the New Left for the Kindle from Amazon. 

Happy Reading Everyone!

MULUB, 

Taylor