The Angostura address, written by Simon Bolivar, is a document that calls for a reorganization of the federalist government system in Venezuela. Bolivar insists that he is an adherent believer in equality among men (note, MEN not WOmen) and believes that laws are what make men equal, even though naturally, men are not created equally (for example there are different levels of intelligence, ability, talent, morality, etc.). Laws are the equalizing factor that provides men the ability to educate themselves and prosper within a society. The only way to ensure this equality however is through a republican state.
Bolivar also points out that is impossible and foolish to try to apply laws created in one country (such as the United States) to another (such as Venezuela) without taking into consideration the different histories, cultures, religions, etc. of the two countries. Bolivar feels this lack of consideration is why the political system (in 1819) in Venezuela was not working as it should and why Venezuela was not prospering the way the US did after its implementation of a democratic system.
A particularly interesting part of the document is Bolivar’s statement that he believes a hereditary senate, rather than elected would be more beneficial for keeping the government stable because the senate would be responsible to no one but the state itself. In this sense, it is within the senates’ best interest to keep the government stable and it would therefore naturally do whatever it must to achieve national stability and general happiness. I thought this seemed a little strange as it effectively takes away the freedom of choice for those (presumably sons) born to senators of future employment. From a young age they would be subjected to all matters of education and training to prepare them for their future senator position without ever being asked if that is what they wished to do with their life (unless I am completely misunderstanding what Bolivar intended).
Bolivar concludes that while he believes in a system of checks and balances (and therefore the tripartite division of government) he believes this decentralization of authority usually has the effect of making democracies weak and it is for this reason most great democracies have failed. Bolivar therefore calls for a centralist rather than federalist organization to government that gives the president more power and more capability to yield power over the country. In the end he believes that a stable government can be achieved by finding a happy medium between pacifying the general will of the people and curtailing public authority.
Margaret Crehan’s article regarding the evolution of the Latin American state divides the history of Latin America into three sections: the Colonial Heritage, Neo-Colonialism, and the Modern State. The first stage of LA history apparently begins with the Spanish colonization. Under Spanish rule the Americas were carved up into vast tracks of land through which the Spaniards could derive resources to help their fledgling economy. Important (rich) persons were appointed to look after the land and keep the native people under control. As such, the vast majority of the population was treated as second-class ( or even third class) citizens with very few rights.
The second stage is neo-colonialism, which as Crehan points out, was basically a transfer of colonial power from the Spanish to America and Europe. Even though the wars of independence had occurred, Latin America was still heavily economically reliant on Europe and the US due to the emergence of export-economies. After independence, newly formed LA countries toyed with the possibility of democratic and republican government. However, these were often weak or futile, and the majority of the population still enjoyed few rights, while the power of the country lay in the hands of a privileged elite.
The development of the modern state has largely been an experiment of dictatorships and military coups. Crehan blames the weak democracies inability to maintain order during the world war years as reason for the emergence of so many military dictatorships in the mid-20th century. Also, the economic support given by America, the most powerful nation, to ensure LA countries didn’t turn towards socialism (as the wayward Cubans!) helped prop of dictatorship and fund corruption. Needless to say, the status of human rights by the turn of the century has been less than exemplary as nations are just beginning to build democracies, and attempt to succeed where they failed in the past.
No comments:
Post a Comment