Monday, September 8, 2008

The Jamaica Letter & The Enlightenment

Simón Bolívar, author of The Jamaica Letter, was considered to be a man influenced by the European Enlightenment yet at the same time; he ends up creating a dictatorship in Bolivia when he writes the country’s constitution. During the course of The Jamaica Letter, various influences of the Enlightenment are mentioned. The first being the examples of the governments set up in Venezuela, New Granada, Buenos Aires, and Chile, based upon Locke’s Two Treatises of Government and Montesquieu’s ideals (19). Bolívar also quotes Montesquieu in the letter, and although it is not in reference to government but actually related to slavery, it is still proof Bolívar’s knowledge of Enlightenment thinkers and their ideals. In trying to decide which form of government would be best for the South American people, Bolívar feels that “…Americans desirous of peace, sciences, art, commerce, and agriculture, would prefer republics to kingdoms” (25). The idea of a republic was heavily regarded in the Enlightenment and is also held in high esteem by Bolívar. He views the Roman republic as perfect and sees Venezuela setting up its provisional government in the form of a republic before New Granada, Buenos Aires, and Chile attempt to follow suit.

At the same time that these provisional governments in America are being set up based off of Enlightenment theories, it is foreseeable that Bolívar will not follow suit when he writes Bolivia’s constitution later. During the latter part of The Jamaica Letter, Bolívar worries that South America is not yet ready for a republic as its form of government. Not only does he believe that “we [the Americans] threw ourselves headlong into the chaos of revolution” (21), but also that “The Americans have made their debut on the world stage suddenly and without the prior knowledge or, to make matters worse, experience in public affairs, having to enact the eminent roles of legislators, magistrates…and all the other supreme and subordinate authorities that make up the hierarchy of a well-organized state” (21). Simply, Bolívar is already aware of how little experience the American people have with running any form of government, let alone a type of government which he views as being perfect, a republic. Hearing that the provisional governments set up in Venezuela and New Granada, which were set up strictly on Enlightenment ideals, are failing, Bolívar admits that “although I aspire to a perfect government for my country, I can’t persuade myself that the New World is ready at this time to be governed by a grand republic” (23). Bolívar also admits in The Jamaica Letter that what he is looking for right away will just be a government that will work right away. Thus, because of the inexperience the New World has with running a government and how it is not ready for a republic, and therefore Bolívar wishes not to have one, there is no way that Bolivia would become a republican state when Bolívar writes the constitution.

At the same time it is interesting that a man, who is still educated in Enlightenment principles, chooses to make the Bolivian government a dictatorship with a dictator who can pick his successor. This idea goes against the idea of a republic, which Bolívar strives to see one day in South America. Although slightly bizarre, earlier in The Jamaica Letter, Bolívar states that in America, “People are slaves when the government, by its essence or though its vices, tramples and usurps the rights of the citizen or subject. By applying these principles, we will find that America was not only deprived of its freedom but deprived as well of the opportunity to practice its own active tyranny” (19). By going on the give examples of absolutist governments, Bolívar believes that is okay for these governments to be the way they are because the rulers practicing the oppression of its people are of the same nationality. Thus, when Bolívar writes the Bolivian constitution stating that there will be a dictator for life, it is justified because it is assumed that the person ruling this absolutist government will be of the Bolivian nationality.

1 comment:

Dr. Cummings said...

Let's remember thought, that authoritarianism wasn't totally eradicated during the Enlightenment. The concept of the enlightened despot (think Frederick the Great of Prussia), a liberal and benevolent, logical ruler who would educate the people carries a lot of weight in Latin America. Also, consider the Enlightenment's need for order. In countries that oscillated between authoritarianism and chaotic civil war in the years following independence, it isn't surprising that Bolívar would opt for a strong executive power. Doesn't the same thing happen in France after a long and bloody (now chaotic, now authoritarian)revolution. Don't Bolívar and Napoleon have something in common? In a more contemporary context, what about Chavez´s so-called "revolución bolivariana"? What does all of this have in common with the thinking of El Libertador.