Ecuador faces a new state of emergency due to alarming wave of violence.

The new state of emergency decree in Ecuador, issued by President Daniel Noboa, represents yet another attempt by the government to contain the rising wave of violence and destabilization that has affected the country in recent years. This is the fourth decree that the president has implemented, a measure that has become recurrent during his administration and raises important questions about the security context in which the country finds itself.

The duration of the state of emergency will be 60 days and will focus on six provinces: Guayas, Los Ríos, Manabí, Orellana, Santa Elena, and El Oro, as well as the Ponce Enríquez canton in Azuay and the Metropolitan District of Quito in Pichincha. This targeted approach aims to channel efforts into the most critical areas, where violence generated by criminal gangs has reached alarming levels.

The government has justified the declaration of the state of emergency by arguing the need to "strengthen the work of the Armed Forces and the National Police" to confront what has been described as a "serious internal upheaval" and an "armed internal conflict." This rhetoric suggests that the government feels cornered by a situation that has exceeded the capacities of traditional security institutions.

One of the most controversial elements of this decree is the implementation of a curfew, which restricts freedom of movement between 10 p.m. and 5 a.m. in several cantons. Authorities hope that this measure, which aims to deter criminal activities under the cover of darkness, will help restore order and security in the most affected areas. However, the effectiveness of such restrictions has been debated in the past, and many wonder whether this strategy will truly address the root causes of the problem.

Since January, when Noboa declared the state of armed internal conflict, the insecurity situation in Ecuador has been deteriorating continuously, driven by the violence of organized groups fighting for control of drug trafficking. This context has not only impacted local communities but has also generated growing international concern about the Ecuadorian government's capacity to manage the crisis.

Criticism of this approach has emerged from various sectors of society. Some argue that emergency measures can be counterproductive, leading to increased repression and human rights violations. In a country where trust in institutions has been eroded, many fear that greater militarization of public security will not be the solution but rather an aggravation of existing problems.

Meanwhile, citizens continue to live in a state of uncertainty and fear. The communities most affected by violence find themselves trapped between the desire for security and the reality of a state that, at times, seems to be losing control. The voices of protest and concern are becoming increasingly evident, and the demand for sustainable solutions and more inclusive security strategies is becoming urgent.

In this context, Noboa's government faces a complicated dilemma: how to balance the need for security with respect for the fundamental rights of citizens. As the state of emergency progresses, it will be crucial to observe how the measures are implemented and whether they truly manage to calm the situation or, conversely, become yet another symptom of the state's inability to manage the crisis.

The future of Ecuador depends not only on the effectiveness of the measures adopted but also on the government's willingness to address not only the symptoms of violence but also the structural causes that fuel it. Recent history teaches us that simplistic solutions may offer temporary relief, but in the long term, a more comprehensive and collaborative approach involving all sectors of society is required in the pursuit of a safer and more stable Ecuador.