Both Ecuador and Bolivia have been the most unstable republics of South America and in both places there today populist governments raised them more durable regimes seeking to preserve the market while adapting to a populist and nationalist sentiment pro-Indian that is very stronger in a population (especially in the highlands), which starred in recent years major social protests. a Despite its socialist rhetoric Morales or Correa not want to pursue a path like the one Cuba ran half a century ago. The governments of La Paz and Quito are opposed to the strategy of expropriating private capital to create a socialized, planned economy governed by a single communist party. Both call for encouraging domestic enterprises to seek foreign investment and ensure a multiparty democracy.
What they want is to move from what they call the a neo-liberalism to give way to a capitalism with protective features, aimed to develop free trade agreements with the U.S. and seeking social measures to reduce the social gap that gigantic differences between rich and poor over the years novenas.a This model is challenged by several trade unionists for whom the a Bolivarian seek to demobilize and quell social protest to continue to maintain a Capitalism and prepare the conditions for the right to return to power , and also by the monetarists who see him as a leap that jaquea integration into the globalization and which could end up creating more debt and inflation. Correa and Morales are modeled Chavez of wanting to make the most marginalized sectors of their societies identify themselves with a state that will protect and improve their access to education, health and justice while avoiding a radical change, a social revolution or civil war.