Simon Bolivar – a non-Bolivarian view

Simon Bolivar

Chavez gives an overt homage to the nationalist Simon Bolivar (1783-1830), by naming his revolutionary movement after Bolivar: 

“Just two days before George Bush’s second electoral victory, someone Bush and his administration apparently cannot stand, Venezuela’s President Hugo Chávez, celebrated his ninth consecutive electoral victory in six years. The vote was for state governors and city mayors and Chavez’s allies swept the vote, winning 20 out of the 22 contested state capitals and 270 of the 337 city halls. Altogether, pro-Chavez factions won the same percentage of the vote, about 60%… in these elections as Chavez himself did two and a half months earlier, when he defeated a recall referendum. … Chavez’s ninth electoral victory (including various referenda on the new constitution) has once again confirmed that he does indeed have a mandate to remake Venezuelan society, to continue his “Bolivarian Revolution”—which is named after South American independence hero Simon Bolivar.”
Gregory Wilpert – Venezuelanalysis.com: “Venezuela’s “Bolivarian Revolution” Continues, Despite U.S. Resistance”; Jan 01, 2005

Who then was Simon Bolivar?

Marxist-Leninists follow the view of Bolivar, written by Karl Marx for the “American Encyclopaedia” [See at Marx on Bolivar at marxists.org)

Karl Marx is quite skeptical of the real virtues of Bolivar. Up to a certain point, even the enthusiastic pro-Bolivarian histories would agree with Marx [See for example, Miguel Centellas, Editor of the Bibliotheca in Bolivar “El Liberatador” ]

While the modern-day Bolivarians exaggerate the republicanism, heroism and steadfastness of Bolivar, Marx points to Bolivar’s irresolution and tendency to don dictatorial powers. While Marx did not explicitly write about Bolivar’s philosophy of state, his biographical notes sound warning bells that peal alarmingly when Bolivar’s ‘ideal’ state governance is examined. We simply here will summarise some un-contested biographical details.

The bones of Bolivar’s life story are not in doubt.

He was by birth an aristocratic criollo, who was influenced by the ideals of the liberal Enlightenment. When in 1808 Napoleon Bonaparte invaded Spain to install his brother Joseph, as the King of Spain, the Peninsular War erupted. Both Spain and its colonies in South America – “new Spain – rebelled.

“The Caracas junta declared independence from Spain and Bolívar was sent to England along with Andrés Bello and Luis López Mendez on a diplomatic mission… Bolívar returned to Venezuela on June 3, 1811, and delivered his discourse in favor of independence to the Patriotic Society.”
See Miguel Centellas, Editor of the Bibliotheca in Bolivar “El Liberatador”

In the year 1812, initial battles were successful; however, Bolívar was soon forced to flee to Cartagena, part of New Granada (known now as
Colombia).

There, Bolívar wrote the “Cartagena Manifesto”, arguing for a united front against Spain of New Granada and Venezuela. He succeeded in convincing the leaders of New Granada, and in 1813 he invaded Venezuela, entering Merida on May 23. He adopted the title “Libertador”.

Bolívar captured Caracas on August 6 and two days later proclaimed the second Venezuelan republic. But once more, Bolívar had to flee, this time to Jamaica and Haiti.

In 1817, this time with Haitian help, Bolívar returned, and won the Battle of Boyaca of August 7, 1819. That year, Bolívar created the Angostura Congress which founded Gran Colombia (a federation of present-day Venezuela, Colombia, Panama, and Ecuador). Bolívar adopted the title of president.

Antonio José de Sucre destroyed the Spanish forces at the Battle of Pichincha on May 23, 1822, thereby liberating the whole of northern South America. But until Spain was dislodged from Peru, a continued threat to independence would be present. On July 26, 1822, Bolívar met with José de San Martín at Guayaquil, but could not come to agreement on joining forces against Peruvian colonists.
San Martín returned to Argentina.

Aided by England, in 1823 Bolívar led an invasion of Peru. On August 6, 1824, Bolívar and Sucre jointly defeated the Spanish army in the Battle of Junín. On December 9 Sucre destroyed the last remnant of the Spanish army in the Battle of Ayacucho. Spain was now ejected from South America.

On August 6, 1825, Sucre called the Congress of Upper Peru which created the Republic of Bolivia in honor of Bolívar. The Bolivian Constitution of 1826, while never enacted, was written by Bolívar. Also in 1826, Bolívar called the Congress of Panama, the first hemispheric conference.

But by 1827, due to personal rivalries among the generals of the revolution, civil wars exploded which destroyed the South American unity for which Bolívar had fought. Surrounded by factional fighting and suffering from tuberculosis, Simón Bolívar died on December 17, 1830.

There is little doubt that the British and the USA and German governments of the time had supported both the Bolivar and San Martin forces.

This comes across clearly from the incisive history of Bolivar written by Marx (Ibid). All these governments had a natural interest in the removal of Spanish rule, in order to effect their own. There is no problem about making allies. But later followers make it appear that Bolivar and his allies did all by themselves. 

In the years following the death of Bolivar, the Venezuelan state became a neo-colony of the British and American states.

The Bolivarian Government Ideals

Bolivar is said to be a Republican, and as opposed to his being an aristocrat, this is partially true. It is said that he derived his views from the Enlightenment Ideals of “civil liberties”:

“Simón Bolívar was a declared republican. … Bolívar established his vision for republican government which blended the Enlightenment ideals of civil liberties with the Greco-Roman vision of civic virtue and restraints on the popular will. Bolívar rejected monarchic or empirical government as both unsuited for Spanish America and inconsistent with the principles of liberty and equality…”
Miguel Centellas; ‘The Bolivarian Republic’; 1995;

We will argue that his allegiance to the Enlightenment was nominal, since he heavily stressed the role of a central government-derived “order”:

“Simón Bolívar asserted as early as 1812 in his Cartagena Manifesto that the revolutionary government’s primary role was to restore order “without regards for laws or constitutions until happiness and peace have been destroyed”.
[The Bolivarian Republic’; Miguel Centellas; Ibid

Moreover, this order was largely created by a hereditary series of bodies, with very limited votes. It is true that as sops to the people, a limited measure of voting rights was allowed. But his well-worked-out system of government proposed that the model state would incorporate these following essential principles:

1. Order as a most important necessity.                                                       2. Tricameral legislature with varied and broad powers composed of
        a. A hereditary and professional Senate.
       b. A body of Censors composing the state’s “moral authority”.
       c. A popularly elected legislative assembly.                                        3. A life-term executive supported by a strong, active cabinet or ministers.
4. A judicial system stripped of legislative powers.
5. A representative electoral system.
6. Military autonomy. ‘
‘The Bolivarian Republic’; Miguel Centellas; 1995; this and all below citations are from this.

It can be seen that this skeleton of Bolivar’s view, forms essentially a “benign dictatorship” with strong autonomous military rule. A despotic regime underlies the plan, even though he disavowed any such tendency:

“A strong government would not be despotic, but rather would allow the state “to use force in order to liberate peoples who are ignorant of the value of their rights” (Cartagena Manifesto).”

Bolivar’s accent upon ”order”, and of a hereditary portion of the Tricameral governing body; and of an autonomous army and lastly of a life-long executive – all indicate that his vision was indeed despotic. He stressed “Strong government and order” to prevent ‘anarchy’:

“The most perfect system of government is that which results in the greatest possible measure of happiness and the maximum social security and political stability … we must hope that security and stability will perpetuate this happiness” (Angostura Discourse).

Strong, central government prevents the anarchy that would destroy true freedom. The state, Bolivarism argues “molds the character of a nation and can set it upon the path to greatness, property, and power” (Essay on Education).”

Bolivar stressed a tricameral legislature to offset any tendency in a bicameral parliament to a stalemate. Only a part was subject to the will of the people in a free vote – the Tribune. The tricameral government followed Montesquieu and was to consist of:

(i) “a Senate to “enact the codes of law and the ecclesiastical regulations and supervise the courts and public worship … appoint the prefects, district judges, governors, corregidores, and all the lesser officials of the department of justice”; Following Montesquieu, Bolívar asserted that the “representative assembly should exercise no active function. It should only make laws and determine whether or not those laws are enforced” (Angostura Discourse).

Bolívar envisioned this as a “neutral force” in the state. But its inspiration was Plato’s ‘Republic’, Roman, British and being an hereditary, not an elective, body.

Bolívar’s Senate would be:

“a moderating force between the people and the government to prevent either from usurping too much power”
(Angostura Discourse).

If as envisaged, the Senate was to form a:

“body of virtuous, patriotic, and intellectual republican citizens through “enlightened education.” 

They were to be exactly akin to Plato’s “Men of Gold”.

“Future Senators are to be educated in “a colegio designed especially to train these guardians and future legislators of the nation …
From childhood they should understand the career for which they have been destined by Providence”
(Angostura Discourse). “

(ii) A body of Censors would “exercise a political and moral power … [as] persecuting attorneys against the government in defense of the Constitution and popular rights … [and] the power of national judgment, which is to decide whether or not the administration of the executive is satisfactory”.
(Message to the Congress of Bolivia).

Bolívar, in his Message to the Congress of Bolivia, described them as:

“The prosecuting attorneys against the government in defense of the Constitution and popular rights”
(Message to the Congress of Bolivia); they check the other branches of the state to keep them from abusing their
powers unconstitutionally.”

(iii) “A Chamber of Tribunes has the “right to initiate laws pertaining to finance, peace, and war”;
Bolívar proposed this as the main legislative body, referred to as the “government”.

This was a voted body, but without ‘complete sovereignty’:

“In his Message to the Grand Convention of Ocaña, Bolívar insisted that the legislative branch “should have only limited sovereignty”, clearly distinguishing that its role, while central, must not be that of complete sovereignty over the state.” Ibid.

Undoubtedly Bolivar saw the need to placate the people with some measure of democracy.
But this was to be severely limited, in essence to the Tribunes (one of the tricameral bodies), and local government:

“While limiting the positions available to direct popular election, Bolívar recognized that there is “Nothing more important to a citizen than the right to elect his legislators, governors, judges, and pastors” (Message to the Congress of Bolivia). The central republican state — with the exception of the Tribunes — is not popularly elected, but local government is left to the hands of the citizens. For the republic, Bolívar proposed a representative electoral system where “[every ten citizens will elect one elector” (Message to the Congress of Bolivia). The electors are the citizens that will actually vote in republican elections. An elector is not required to own property, but he must “be able to write out his ballot, sign his name, and read the laws” (Message to the Congress of Bolivia). In the Angostura Discourse, the Libertador also divided citizenship into the classifications of “active” and “passive” citizenship. Only active citizens participate as electors in the republic and act as a “check on popular license” (Angostura Discourse) to prevent the masses from inadvertently acting against their own interests.”

To cap the governmental edifice, stood the President who would be allowed to appoint his own successor. For some reason, this office was considered not ‘hereditary’:

“Bolívar headed his model republic with a restricted, life-term President who appoints his own successor “but his office will never be hereditary” (Jamaica Letter)… The government functions without the personal direction of the President; the Bolivarist republic, once set into motion, continues on with its own momentum. The personal demands on the President are not great, he is there to act as a symbol or hero for the republic and cannot constitutionally become a tyrant, nor can he hinder the republic with ineffective leadership. “Should the president be a man of no great talent or virtue… he will be able to discharge his duties satisfactorily …
the ministry, managing everything by itself, will carry the burdens of the state” (Angostura Discourse).

Even the courts were only “the arbiters of private affairs” (Message to the Congress of Bolivia), without:

“the power to revoke or challenge legislation. The only role of the justices and magistrates is to abide by the laws approved by the Tribunes or legislative assembly…
Bolívar argued that “the judges are responsible for the enforcement of laws; they do not depart from them”.
(Angostura Discourse).

Finally the accent on the position of the military is clearly designed for military supremacy:

“The last foundation of the Bolivarist republic is an autonomous military. In his 1828 Message to the Grand Convention of Ocaña, Bolívar declared that the army “was the glory of freedom … its obedience to the law, to the chief of state, and to its general were worthy of the heroic age of republican virtues” …                                                                                                       “The liberators … are entitled to occupy forever a high rank in the Republic that they have brought into existence” (Angostura Discourse). “
Centas, Ibid.

Conclusions:

All this is quite consistent with a view of government that follows a paternalistic, military based despotism. It is not one that socialists would follow.

Those advocating that the Chavez’s “Bolivarian Revolution” is socialist, do not discuss the historical figure in whom Chavez places such respect.