I’m sorry this is coming a bit late, but here it is. First of, a little background info on Gilles Deleuze since I don’t really believe in his way of saying that everything is a matter of jurisprudence. So, let’s see where he is coming from. Heavy smoker, Paris-born Deleuze, was a philosopher who from the 1960’s started writing on philosophy, film and literature. He is also famous for interpreting other philosophers such as Kant and Nietzsche.. hmmm okay. So, in this very short extract, Deleuze mentions basically that you can’t just generalize everything, that rights change all the time and are different depending on the context and circumstances and therefore proposes jurisprudence. However, what I don’t agree is that how can there be jurisprudence if there isn’t a declaration of rights? How would we base ourselves on what’s legal or not? He gives an interesting case of smoking in cabs. But it’s not only a matter of law, it’s more of a matter of the right of the employee (taxi driver) towards working in an environment that won’t harm his/her health! In this case, it’s not only about jurisprudence but also about what is considered (under the rights of the employee) as ethical. Deleuze is only basing his arguments on a philosophical approach which really only states that law is everything. Well, without something on top, a path, on what will we base the law on?

Isn’t it ironic?

Chavez calling what he is doing his “Bolivarian Revolution?” While in reality he is only using the figure of Bolivar just to create a sense of unity in the country, a figure that Venezuelans pride themselves for, just as a method in this campaign.

Embarrassing.

In the Americas, Bolivar is portrayed as a heroic sometimes-godlike figure since he was one of the two leaders (along with Jose de San Martin) who struggled for the independence and unsuccessfully for the unification and building of the Americas. However, Chavez with his outdated anti-imperialist speeches and “war” against the evil US capitalism has completely drowned Venezuela from what it used to be. Reading Bolivar’s Angustura Address made me shake my head in disproval of Chavez. I found it quite funny how Chavez is basing himself in Bolivar and simply not really following his claims. For instance, something that stood up as soon as I started reading was how Bolivar said, “The continuation of power in the same individual has frequently led to the demise of democratic governments. Periodic elections are essential in popular systems, because nothing is so dangerous as to leave power in the hands of a single citizen over long periods of time.” Seriously? Chavez, I’m sorry but I don’t think you could really be called the “modern Bolivar.” Bolivar has also been right when mentioning that even if Latin America’s hands are free, our hearts will still suffer from the “pangs” of servitude. Even until now, people are still tied to their pasts, that is why they are strongly against any stronger power dominating them. Also Bolivar keeps repeating the idea of what constitutes as a Republic and mentions how men rather than laws are more important. All in all, it just gives me an angry feeling when reading Bolivar and how dictator Chavez is just using and quoting him just to manipulate and gain the sympathy of the people of Venezuela, which I can’t argue, he is taking a similar approach (following Bolivar) in SOME ways but with what consequences and how? Bolivar respected rights, in terms of morality and education. What has Chavez done? This whole situation saddens me and I have no more words to say, but only to wish Venezuela the best with this dictator that claims to follow Bolivar.

A few things to be noted in Bolivar’s text is a certain confusion that seems to be between the power of the representatives of the people and the power of the people, if they are to have any power. For instance, at the beginning of the Angostura Address, Simon Bolivar talks about the representatives of national sovereignty having a will, which is absolute? So one of the first questions that pop to my mind was what does it mean to say that they have a will, which is absolute? Would not the people have absolute an absolute will within the Rousseauian tradition of political philosophy? In that regard the ‘representatives’ of the people don’t really have absolute power, but only derivative power. The suspicions mentioned above where to a certain extent confirmed when he argues for a hereditary senate, particularly for the liberator of Venezuela, he seems to be sure that the only way for Venezuela to honour the sacrifice of those who fought the Spanish is to honour them with a hereditary senate and if Venezuela fails to do so, it simply does not deserve to be free. The later more than an argumentation in favour of a hereditary Senate, seems to be a statement of force in favour of it.

After reading Bolivar’s text and looking at the history of a few Latin American countries, one cannot but agree with Margaret E. Crahan when she argues that one of the consequences of the political wars of independence was that new groups took the place that before was occupied by the Spaniards or the Portuguese, because the criollos where not so much interested in liberty and equality for everyone, but rather annoyed for being servile to the occupier, but once the occupier has left, the political structures and the ways of conducting the business of the State remain more or less the same. So rather than being revolutionary, the wars of independence were more about transfer of power than establishment of political novel associations which maintained the promise of individual rights that were made by creoles like Antonio Nariño.

Another point where Crahan hits the nail is when she argues that one of the reasons why the countries that had recently attained independence where far away from having political structures that guarantee the political equality that the revolutionaries predicated was because the structure of State that they had inherited, had not integrated the discourse and practice of individual rights that had already swept England and France. In consequence, the practical structure of the State simply was not ready to grant equality to the impoverished classes and there was not a political class able and willing to demand from the emerging political class, allegiance to the promises they had made when they were trying to get people’s support. As Crahan notes, the centralized structure of the Latin American incipient states saw the Church as a conservative force that sided with the reactionary forces in an effort to maintain a status quo which was beneficial to that sector of the population; however, those who were more prone to openness and equality saw precisely in the Church an anchor that did not help the political and economical advancement of the countries. The difficulty of agreeing on the idea of a nation and the procedure of how the nation should be ruled, led to different internal conflicts that were often aided by the different neighbors who were trying to take political and economical advantage of the new configurations of the political scenarios in the region.

Although she blames the emergence of authoritarian regimes in the chaos created by the needs of a dependent capitalism and the emergent demands for democratization, it seems that neither the structure of the State was developed to guarantee democratic rights, nor the people was ready to challenge the circumvention of the rules which had rendered laws, edicts and constitutions simply dead letter. The latter explains why the emergence of Marxist communities was not able to transcend the personalism and allegiance to an specific creed, rather than the pursuing of individual and communal interests under the certainty of rights and the rule of law.

https://nacla.org/node/5406

This article is a solid analysis of the coupling of the militarization of borders with the imposition of free trade agreements in the Americas, a deadly formula that equals migration for millions of Central Americans.  Read it and weep…it is truly a sad sad situation that seems to have no hope of ending well for anybody except owning class capitalists and security firms.

Major Mexican papers ban sex ads to combat trafficking

Several successful newspapers in Mexico have stopped running advertisements “that could be used by people-traffickers to exploit men, women and children”. They are presenting it as a symbolic removal of support from the large sex trafficking market that exists in Mexico.

To me, it seems unlikely that this action will in any way influence the sex trafficking rings, which probably already have a strong foothold that the removal of any newspaper ads they may have taken out will not undermine. However, it is a step in the right direction.

Bolivia minister resigns over Amazon road protest

This article outlines the conflict between the government and the indigenous peoples living in the Amazon who oppose the construction of a highway through the rainforest. Many indigenous people, mostly from the three different groups which live in the area, took part in a two month march through the Amazon to protest the highway. On Sunday, the 25th of September, police used tear gas against the activists, as well as arresting several of the protestors.

Sacha Llorenti, the interior minister, resigned after begin blamed and criticized for these controversial police actions. He denies ordering the action, as does his deputy, who also resigned.

Simon Bolivar’s Angostura Address is particularly interesting considering the political state of Venezuela now. Bolivar is championing republicanism, stating that America has the most virtuous system around. He also states that the most dangerous thing that can happen to a nation is when a leader stays in power for too long. It will inevitably breed tyranny. So it is interesting reading Bolivar’s words, words that Hugo Chavez holds to dear, when Chavez himself has assumed dictatorial powers. He claims that it is the will of the people, and it does seem to be considering that Chavez is in place through free and fair elections, but it is seemingly contrary to the desires of the founding father of Venezuela. Perhaps Chavez believes that his benevolent dictator style of governance is actually the natural form of government in Venezuela. Bolivar said that he only took on dictatorial powers when it was absolutely necessary but he was glad and relieved to give it up as such power is a huge responsibility and very dangerous. Bolivar argues for a British style constitution for Venezuela, one that has a hereditary senate to stand as the base of government to ensure stability. Bolivar really argues for a system of government that is tailored for Venezuela, to suit the needs and distinct culture of Venezuelans. He states that Venezuela needs a government that is representative of its people, neither fully American, African, or European. He says that the perfect government is the one that creates the greatest happiness, political stability and social security. He says that Venezuela still is very corrupt and damaged from years of imperial rule so before they rush into a new style of government they must be very careful. He states that American style democracy would be too much for Venezuela to handle. Considering America had a pretty limited franchise at this moment in time, it seems fairly absurd that he would consider the American system to be idealistic and truly democratic. While Bolivar states that he wishes for a truly free and democratic state, it seems as if he still believes in a paternalistic state, especially with his desire for a hereditary senate run by the liberators. While Bolivar may think this senate is the best idea for his country, it is not truly representative of his country. Bolivar believes that virtuous men, not virtuous laws, constitute a republic. One would think a combination of both would actually be necessary, however. This endorsement of virtuous men is a continuation of his paternalistic approach, rather than a truly democratic one. Virtue is pretty subjective afterall, plus it denies women any power.

While Bolivar claims to want true democracy and he shuns the idea of becoming a long term dictator, he still desires paternalistic style politics and with his hereditary senate of liberators, he potentially is endorsing a dictatorship of a particular ideology. By doing so, he is really quite similar to Chavez today, only Chavez is just more forthright in his paternalistic governing approach.

In Venezuela, we grow up reading about Simon Bolivar, “El libertador,” and his many adventures in order to free, not only our nation, but also the continent from the hands of the Spanish colonizers.  A man of great wisdom and education, traveled and dedicated; Simon Bolivar changed the course of an entire region with passion, wit and sacrifices. Raised in a wealthy home, Bolivar fought for equalities for all Venezuelans and freedom from slavery. Thanks to him and his brave supporters, Bolivar liberated Venezuela, but also Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and Bolivia from the hands of tyranny. The world has yet to see another hero like Bolivar, in my opinion.

Reading the Angostura manifest inevitably brought tears to my eyes. I remember the days when learning in school about Venezuelan history was a source of pride, when hearing the name of Bolívar filled our hearts with rejoice and now everything has so drastically changed. Employed as a manipulative presidential platform, dictator Hugo Chavez Frias has misused his name in vain, over and over and over. He cites Bolivar’s magical and inspiring words for the wrong causes, playing with such an emotional tool as the libertador’s image. Recently, he exhumed the remains of my hero, broadcasted live on camera for no logical reason beyond Chavez’s well-known babalow ways (Africa-Cuba dark magic).  What a traumatic experience that was!

Bolivar wrote this manifest on February 15thm 1819, in Guyana Ciudad Bolivar (previously known as Angostura) for the inauguration of the second congress. In this document, Bolivar as president of the nation, expressed his opinions about the constitutional project in discussion, and reflected on the realities our nation lived by the end of 1818. At 11:0 a.m. on that day, Bolivar addressed the audience for over an hour, highlighting the atrocities witnessed during the Spanish ruling, stating that new nations like ours ought to attend to the needs of the new society without mocking political models from other countries (like the United States of America). Bolivar believed that a centralist government was more ideal for Venezuela, including a three powers: the executive, the legislative and the juridical (still valid today). Interestingly, as pioneer as he was, he also suggested a new Moral Power to be added the government.

What I love about Bolivar the most is that he strongly believed that in order to rule you had to educate people (aligned with current universal rights to education).

I grew up with this motto in school, borrowed by the great Bolivar: “Moral y luces son los polos de una República, moral y luces son nuestras primeras necesidades”. Oh memories!

Interesting fact: Bolivar resigned as president of the republic after he delivered this speech, and was rejected by the congress. They restituted his position as leader of the nation minutes after.

In this manifesto, Bolivar noted that Venezuela had established democratic rights like the freedom to speak and write freely, a moral code of rights and laws, the right to diverse religion and equality for all races.

Interesting quotes I took from this magnificent piece that can contribute to our debate on human rights are the following:

“All men are born with equal rights to the benefits of society and equal to aspire to any position.”

“The rule of law is more powerful than the rule of tyranny; the practice of justice is the practice of freedom”

We certainly miss Simon Bolivar back home, and we hope one day we can remember the libertador without automatically picturing Chavez’s ugly face.

Simon Bolivars address was a fascinating piece of political history and philosophy interwoven with Bolivars own emotional and moral sentiments. Addressing the Congress of Angostura, Bolivar sets forth many proposals towards a new constitution for what will become now-day Venezuela.  Many of his political thoughts are extremely interesting and although inclined not to believe in his utopian state I cannot but help to wonder what may have happened had this all been implemented. One of his main ideas, stemming from Montesquieu and Roseau is the specific appropriateness of a constitution to a country: meaning that the government of a country should not strive for what is necessarily the best form of government thinkable but one that will dually address the national character, environment and temperament of the people and one that “(…)… produces the greatest possible happiness, the highest level of social security, and the greatest degree of political stability.”

For him, the national character is defined by a mixed and diverse society of Americans, Africans and to a lesser extent Indians. He states his own dilemma at the beginning “our political existence is nonexistence” pointing out the difficulties he foresees in his nation because of their historical passivity in all things political and the disconnect from the ruling power and ruling place. However this seems to slightly contradict his call for a hereditary senate. The idea is that this senate would form a body loyal to both the people and the government. However I think Bolivar contradicts himself in pointing out the gullibility of humans when it comes to power but assuming that it could be changed by education and virtue. However he does put extreme emphasis on education, promoting a fourth power alongside executive, judicative and legislative which is the “poder moral” or moral power. The idea being that there would be a power solely responsible for the education of the people. Now although this has major implications, potentially horrible consequences and the like, again I can’t help wondering: if it had been implemented as he foresaw it how would it be different?

The second reading makes the claim that because of the disconnect between the theory of individual rights cemented in laws and governments and the execution(or lack thereof) of those laws it was possible for colonial state structures to be passed to the American elite in the 19^th century.

She sets up her historical analysis looking at how the function and role of the state led towards the creation, ultimately, of populism.

Each of the stages that is evaluated points to either how individuals or groups had to be in good favour of the monarch or how power vacuums were filled by national icons or how the disbelief in the theory of the state led people to a necessary belief in the power of a supreme being, or individual.

I find her article convincing, however I am wary of articles that are framed so obviously to set up a single argument as I feel they tend to be very selective in what they include and don’t include in their analysis.