A showdown between grassroots representatives and party leadership threatens the future of Pachakutik’s unity and influence.

In a bold act of defiance, six members of the Pachakutik political movement’s National Assembly broke ranks with their party leadership on June 7, 2025, casting their votes in favor of the controversial National Solidarity Law proposed by the ruling government.

Despite threats of expulsion from the national leadership, the assembly members stood firm, with some even expressing a willingness to face consequences for their decisions. The rebellion underscores a deepening rift within the movement, which has seen increasing tensions between grassroots members and top leaders.

A Message of Defiance

José Nango, one of the dissident legislators, openly challenged the Pachakutik leadership in a fiery speech during the plenary vote. Nango, who hails from Pastaza, a province grappling with the effects of ongoing armed conflict, made it clear that his loyalty lies first and foremost with his constituents.

“I rise with the duty to speak on behalf of the province of Pastaza,” Nango declared, reminding his colleagues that his support for the National Solidarity Law was rooted in the needs of the people he represents, rather than any party ideology. He continued, highlighting the urgency of the law in addressing the country’s escalating violence. “Today we face a threat that surpasses the State,” Nango emphasized, positioning himself and his fellow dissenters as champions for the nation’s survival.

Nango’s defiance also extended to the leadership’s demand that dissenting members refrain from using party symbols. The assembly member appeared before the plenary vote wearing the wipala, an emblem associated with the indigenous struggle, symbolizing his allegiance to the grassroots movement over the party’s directives.

The Breaking Point for Pachakutik

In the end, six of the nine Pachakutik assembly members sided with the government, signaling a significant shift in the party’s internal dynamics. In addition to Nango, Carmen Tiupul, Edmundo Cerda, Manuel Choro, Cecilia Baltazar, and Fernando Nantipia cast their votes in favor of the law. The group issued a joint statement on June 8th, explaining their decision. They argued that their support for the law was based on a “technical analysis” and a commitment to the safety and rights of the country’s citizens amid the growing violence.

The statement, which notably lacked the Pachakutik symbol, was instead adorned with the colors of the wipala, further illustrating the disintegration of unity within the movement. The dissenting legislators made it clear that their vote was driven by the pressing need for “firm, responsible, and urgent responses” to Ecuador’s security crisis.

Pachakutik’s Future in Question

The fallout from this rebellion could leave Pachakutik in a precarious position. If the leadership follows through on its threats of expulsion, the party would be left with only three remaining assembly members, as other key figures such as Álex Toapanta and Marina Yumbay have already opposed the National Solidarity Law.

This rupture is not new, however. The division within Pachakutik has been brewing for months, stretching back to the 2025 presidential runoff campaign when national leaders like Leonidas Iza sided with the Correísmo faction, supporting Luisa González. Meanwhile, local leaders, including those within the assembly, favored backing the current president, Daniel Noboa. This schism between national and local leaders has now come to a head in the form of open defiance in the National Assembly.

The Political Polarization of Pachakutik

Nango’s words, “Let them go and expel them! Or the political parties they are serving!” encapsulate the wider issue at hand. Pachakutik, a movement once heralded as a unifying force for indigenous and grassroots political participation, is now caught in the crossfire of Ecuador’s intense political polarization. As this internal conflict unfolds, the party faces a critical question: can it survive the fragmentation of its leadership and the increasing divide between its grassroots base and national figures?

The future of Pachakutik remains uncertain as the party grapples with its identity and direction. If the leadership pushes forward with expulsions, it may only deepen the rift, leaving the party vulnerable to further erosion of its influence. What is clear, however, is that the battle within Pachakutik is emblematic of the broader political polarization that is taking hold across Ecuador.