This past sunday was the celebration of America's Declaration of Independence. The mood in the nation's capital was one of contentment. Despite rough economic times, it's still good to be an American. Americans have a lot to celebrate, indeed. In 234 years they have managed to go from a broke, New World ex-colony, to the world's super power - or at least, to the world's top dog. Coincidentally, the next day (July 5th), Venezuela celebrated its own Declaration of Independence. For most Venezuelans, it is safe to say that the contentment does not exist and the pride is lukewarm. The glorious revolutions of two men - Simon Bolivar and Jose de San Martin - never did carry out what they promised.
Hugo Chavez has a habit of glorifying the revolution of Simon Bolivar and the meaning it had. But it is not just Chavez, in Venezuelan culture Bolivar is like a God. Imagine if in America George Washington were revered as the "liberator", the "the father and savior of this country". Imagine if Washington had liberated Canada and Mexico too and tried to rule all three countries at the same time, haha. Imagine if every single city in America had a Washington Square with a big statue of Washington, imagine if Washington's portraits hung in every single public office, and lastly, imagine if the glory and praise of the founding fathers combined into one man; general Washington. One would never notice, as many in Venezuela never do notice, just how harmful this glorification of Bolivar has been to Venezuelan political development, because we see it as just culture, just part of our history and folklore. But the truth is that Bolivar was not all that we praise him to be and the cult of Bolivar is the root of a dangerous political habit that slows our development today: the longing for the messiah.
The idea of strong personalistic presidencies - strongmen - that has been at the heart of Latin American politics started with Simon Bolivar. Though obviously it also takes its roots on the colonization style of Spain, which was far more centralized in its authority than England was to America - hence why America was much more prepared to govern itself than the Latin countries upon independence. Bolivar singlehandedly liberated five countries and vocally expressed his desire to rule over all of South America as one country. I mean, wow, that is an entire continent, what was he thinking?? Regardless, he may not have ruled an entire continent, but he surely felt like he was entitled to do so. In fact, it turns out - contrary to what Chavez may profess - Bolivar was the son of Spanish immigrants and in the pyramidal societal structure, he was second to the top (Spanish born "peninsulares" were in the number one spot, duh). The struggle for who was to be in charge of the colonial territory rested in the two groups - the Spanish born daddies and the New World born sons. Sadly, for all the flowery talk of freedom at the basis of Latin American independent movements, the changes of decolonization were very small. What happened was that the sons kicked out their daddies and ended up ruling just like their daddies. The social hierarchy which placed whites at the top (socially and economically) and everyone else at the bottom, remained, despite the abolition of slavery. That is because the one thing that did not get abolished was the ways and means of ruling: there was no abolition of the hacienda. Upon Bolivar's exile and death (as he literally got kicked out for his dictatorial ways), the Gran Colombia split into three countries: Venezuela, Colombia, and Ecuador. These countries then entered the period of Caudillism which was pretty much rotating leadership between hacienda owners, whoever could kill the other off. The hacienda system is appalling mostly in that it was feudalism in the 1800s. Thus, while America was establishing it's system of government, there was chaos and survival of the fittest in South America.
Despite the fact that this past was, in the case of Venezuela, 199 years ago - which seems like a long time - it is still present in our political culture. Latin Americans still look for messiahs in white horses that will come to liberate them and fix their situation, change it, take over the country, fire every one, throw a coup de eta, etc. Over two hundred years ago it was the messianic Simon Bolivar, after independence it was the Caudillos, in the 1900s it was the Perons and the Pinochets, and in modern times it is the Chavez and Correas.
The problem lies with the basic concept of rule by one versus rule by a group. In America, the notion of the founding fathers - a group, not a single man! - reinforces the idea of consensus building, federal government, you have the "united" states of america, the idea that many parts make the whole. In South America, because of the fact that our independence movements were about two people - one that owned the south and another that owned the north - our political histories have been molded to glorify the messiah, not the group. This explains why so many of our democracies are strongly presidential, where the popular support lies with the president and not the congress. Yes, in America congress has low approval ratings, but in general congress is strong because the people make it so and the system is designed so that the group can be represented just as the single man (the president) is, as equally as possible. In Latin America, the president is always more powerful than the congress (the group), with few exceptions.
Laying that much power in one individual is the greatest danger to a system as fragile as a democracy. Yet, our obsession with messianic presidents is not something people realize and it is a sad reality. Once Latin Americans realize that the problem is not their leaders but their own notions of what their leaders should do, perhaps then they will be able to build better governments. But until then, we will continue to fall victim to the dangers of placing too much power on one man.
When Simon Bolivar and Jose de San Martin met at Guayaquil to "discuss the future of South America", Bolivar made a toast to the revolution in which he described himself and San Martin as "The Greatest Men in South America". To this day, South Americans believe Bolivar's description of himself, without asking of themselves what, aside from beating the Spanish in battle, did he do that was so great in establishing functional governments? Let's face it, if we are going to hold Bolivar accountable for everything beyond just the battlefield, we need to really question his political legacy.
These are the questions that need to be asked. No one likes to revise history or question their deeply rooted notions, but how can a country change if it can't seriously reflect on its own past?
As to the past and Latin American history, I too held these deeply rooted notions dear. But I came across a book that made me question the past that I had been taught and gave me a new perspective. You can say that book is the reason for this post and the reason for my evolution of thought on Latin American history.
Below is the book in question. Anyone interested in this subject should pick it up!! it's a must read and not horribly dense. It offers a window, an overview to the patterns and recurring themes in Latin American history.
No comments:
Post a Comment