The case of Latin America has always been one of the most extraordinary cases to analyze, both in its government, as in its policy, in its society and in its economy. It is, then, a land rich in almost all the resources that I can think of naming, but that at the same time, has enjoyed the correct administration and use of these only a few times, seeing some short "golden ages" where all the indicators go up, and then return to the common state of stagnation.
It is not necessary to study the history of the region too much to realize that the main cause of this is the State, or more than the State itself, which is quite non-existent in the region, the occupants of this, that is, the government. Latin America has been plagued by tyrannical rulers of all positions, of all kinds of disparate thoughts, and with ideas that are even contradictory to the very existence of the region.
These governments, which are practically the norm, usually put their hands full in the economy, preventing it from flourishing, taking over natural resources for purposes of little national interest, thus, the progress or development of the region is in the background giving priority to the permanence of a few in power.
Of course, as the State lasts over time, but governments don't, resources are never destined to anything other than to keep these in power, and the free market is totally interrupted, giving way to a dirigism of the economy with ends political or ideological rather than economic.
We could say that the Latin American people are victims, like all other peoples, although to a greater degree, of their government, as we could also say that the main problem in the region has been statist authoritarianism, regardless of its location on the political spectrum. Although these would be mere superficial observations, which although not entirely wrong, if to a large degree.
These statements would be wrong, first, because there is no people who have been victims of something alien to themselves, and second, because if any malaise is recurrent, both in a society and in the human, then it is not the problem, but rather it is the effect caused by the problem, which is the one that ultimately must be fixed.
Thus, if tyranny is recurrent in Latin America, it is not because this is the problem, but rather that there is something that is causing it continuously, and that must be changed, which is not unique to this region, although it is one of the areas where it is more prone, what I would call, citing Bolívar; the habit of domination.
Although to know about this malaise in the region, its meaning, and how it has really affected society, we must go back a few years back, from the origins of the republics.
For what we will use a story told by Bolivar himself on February 15, 1819, during the Congress of Angostura:
America, on becoming separated from the Spanish monarchy, found itself like the Roman Empire, when that enormous mass fell to pieces in the midst of the ancient world. Each dismembered portion formed then an independent nation in accordance with its situation or its interests, the difference being that those members established anew their former associations. We do not even preserve the vestiges of what once we were; we are not Europeans, we are not Indians, but an intermediate species between the aborigines and the Spaniards. Americans by birth and Europeans in right, we are placed in the dilemma of disputing with the natives our titles of possession and maintaining ourselves in the country where we were born, against the opposition of the invaders. Thus, ours is the most extraordinary and complicated case.
Moreover, our destiny has always been a purely passive one; our political existence has always been null, and we find ourselves in greater difficulties in attaining our liberty, since we were placed in a lower grade than servitude, because we had been robbed not only of liberty but also of active and domestic tyranny. Allow me to explain this paradox.
In an absolute regime, authorized power does not admit any limits. The will of the despot is the supreme law, arbitrarily executed by the subordinates who participate in the organized oppression according to the measure of the authority they enjoy. They are in trusted with civil, political, military and religious functions; but in the last analysis, the Satraps of Persia are Persians, the Pashas of the Great Master are Turks, the Sultans of Tartary are Tatars. China does not send for her Mandarins to the land of Genghis-khan, her conqueror.
America, on the contrary, received all from Spain, which had really deprived her of true enjoyment and exercise of active tyranny, by not permitting us to share in our own domestic affairs and interior administration. This deprivation had made it impossible for us to become acquainted with the course of public affairs; neither did we enjoy that personal consideration that inspires the shine of power in the eyes of the multitude, so important in the great revolutions. I will say, in short, we were kept in estrangement, absent from the universe and all that relates to the science of government.
This concept of "active tyranny" is vital when it comes to understanding the failure assumed by Latin America between its expectations and its results. While in other colonies such as those of the United Kingdom in Northern America it was enjoyed relative autonomy, in the American colonies of Spain this did not exist, and the rulers, viceroys, and every figure with a minimum of authority, preceded directly from the metropolis. So that even the local aristocracy, that is, the descendants of the conquerors, or the children of Europeans born in the new continent, known as "white creoles", remained in a position far from the government administration, and all the America was directed from the Iberian peninsula and its representatives, the "white peninsulars", who had the greatest imperial privileges in the region.
This is not due, as some modern rumors suggest, to that Spain colonized America to steal and take to the metropolis, while other empires like the British were "benign" and wanted to settle in a new land. Totally the opposite. By the time of the colonies, before there was any independent nation on the American continent, the south belonging to Spain was more prosperous and developed than the north belonging to the British and French, Mexico City or Lima had up to three times the population that any city of British America, and squares, buildings and infrastructures were erected everywhere. This is because Spain, unlike the United Kingdom, colonized the Americas hoping never to leave it, and trying to make the new continent, in the long term, an extension of the Iberian Peninsula.
From there to the Spanish sent all kinds of administrative authority of the same peninsula, and the lack of autonomy was mainly due to the coarse and centralized style that was characteristic of the Spanish empire. The Spaniards did not want at all that there were men capable of governing in the Americas and that they could try to challenge the King, because they wanted to establish themselves there for life, contrary to what happened in the United Kingdom, in which there were greater economic and administrative freedoms, and who did not care about dealing with such a large and new land, because they just wanted to capture the benefits.
Under these circumstances, the people of Spanish America became accustomed to tyrannical servitude, with its high levels of illiteracy, and with its complete lack of responsibility for both public and private matters.
This footprint has been imbued until modern times in the countries south of the Rio Grande; the people accustomed to being sheep are constantly looking for a shepherd to guide them.
After the independence of the South America nations, the lack of institutionality, stability, and knowledge about the public administration cost as much as the liberators themselves predicted. Civil wars followed one another in all nascent republics, and the people, loyal to men rather than to their country or to ideas, chose a tyrant to follow and for whom to give life. These fratricidal wars reduced the majority of the population, ended with confidence, prestige and any kind of international interest, and subjected all Latin American peoples to tyrannies of all types and colors.
Just to say that in my country, Venezuela, from 1830 (dissolution of the Gran Colombia) until 1903 (establishment of a solid government) there were around 166 armed revolts, which ended up with around 70% of the population, and that translates, if all the days of war were continuous, in 24 years of war (in a period of 73 years).
Until the middle of the last century, all Latin America lived under the rule of authoritarian rulers who, although they tended to declare themselves democratic, had a State that existed only because of their person, and as such, each time there was a political difference or each time that it was time for the death of one of these caudillos, the instability took over the nation, and the weapons were frequently raised again.
Despite the fact that today there is a representative form of democracy in the region, this pattern continues to be repeated. Just as in the past the caudillos were popular, in modernity the elected presidents are not less popular, but not less tyrants, and all vary their framework of action regarding their capacity to maintain the vote.
There is today, in Latin America, a democracy of tyrants, where people choose a man, and depending on their acceptance, this may or may not hold absolute power, this latter as long as it has a broad enough voter base that can ensure victory in any of the elections.
The laws, the separation of powers, universal human rights, all are dead and worthless ideas for these tyrants, because they have a group of people who unconditionally support them, and not to the country, or their ideas, so literally they can contradict themselves on numerous occasions, as has happened, and continue to count on the loyalty of their subjects.
So far, we have analyzed how a trace left in the times of colonization continues to affect the Spanish-American peoples, but this does not mean that the culprit of these problems is Spain, as many are accustomed to pointing out.
When the independence of the American nations was declared, all ties with Spain were cut, which means that it can no longer be responsible for the successes or failures of the new republics, that is precisely what independence is about, to not depend. Liberty was declared by the liberators, and sealed in the papers, codes and systems, but the people never accepted this liberty, and to this day, it continues to seek to imitate the ties with its former colonists in the form of any tyrant of turn.
The habits of domination and servitude are still present in the people, who actively support their oppressors. Latin America is not a victim of authoritarian tyrants, because it lives looking for them, on the contrary, it is a victim of itself, and of its love for servitude.
Independence was declared on paper two centuries ago, and Spain left the continent at that time, but the people have not wanted to assume their freedom, and until this happens, Latin America will not be truly free.
Bolívar, when he referred to Peru, saw the greatest problem in the region, since it was a country that had the two greatest enemies of freedom; gold and slaves, the first because it corrupts everything and the second because it is corrupted in itself. This malady does not suffer only Peru, but, as I said at the beginning of the post, all the countries of the region have their gold in differents natural resources that are capable of filling the vaults of each of them, and as I have also described throughout the article, they have slaves who don't want to be freed.
Men who have allowed themselves to be corrupted not only by their attitude of servitude and their harmful habits, but also by the countless riches that lie in their territory, is the reason why Latin America has not stopped living in chaos, and until the day their heart does not burn in the fire necessary to not only demand, but to take for himself the freedom that must be his own will, the Latin American people will remain tied to the same chains in their hands, and will be condemned to live in his future exactly the same as he has lived in his past.
Curated for #informationwar (by @openparadigm)
Our purpose is to encourage posts discussing Information War, Propaganda, Disinformation and other false narratives. We currently have over 7,500 Steem Power and 20+ people following the curation trail to support our mission.
Join our discord and chat with 150+ fellow Informationwar Activists.
Connect with fellow Informationwar writers in our Roll Call! InformationWar - Contributing Writers/Supporters: Roll Call Pt 10
Ways you can help the @informationwar
This is SO true! here, people love to vote for tyrants, just to see if this tyrant is better than the last one. In Latin America people don't know what the word "freedom"means. No even at the start of the independence of the region. Freedom is seen as a thing that liberators give, rather than a right that you earn. In Latin America, the figure of the tyrant is seen as needed because, if we don't have one, who will give us our freedom?
In Latin America people don't want freedom, they just want kind tyrants.
You are right, rather than not wanting freedom, it is not even knowing what it means.
Very interesting post @vieira. Well written and thought provoking ...
The heart of your post seems to me self-evident. Freedom (I like liberty ...) has nothing to do with economics. Or resources ... Latin America has these in abundance.
It has everything to do with what a man believes. What a man thinks is so profoundly influenced by what he believes to be true ...
In my country, the USA, we once were clear about this. "We the people" fought a war to be free. Free to do what? Choose not our leaders. BUT, our representatives! There is a world of difference between the two ...
Sadly, "we" (speaking of the majority ...) have lost sight of this and are therefore losing our liberty. And not in the early stages either, but in an advanced state of decline ...
I would desperately love to be proven wrong. We'll find out!
Upvoted 100%. Keep posting @Vieira! 👍
Posted using Partiko Android
So is. Liberty is an idea, it is not an object, therefore, if people stop believing in it or stop understanding it, then it is lost. The systems in which man has more liberty are more fragile, because they need people to maintain them, and if these move away from the real sense of liberty, then it easily decays. It is easier to descend from liberty to tyranny, than vice versa.
... What exactly happens around you? Do people starve and lose their homes? What is with water and energy supply? Do you have food shortage? What is with forest- and river maintenance where you live?
Can do people things on their own? Do you have a community center where you gather and solve things locally? How much are you allowed to do with your hands and minds? Did you witness people who are interested in governing their local needs that they start projects or something?
I would like to know things which are physical reality to you. I know little about South America or Venezuela.
The conditions that currently exist in Venezuela are extraordinary and exceptional to explain in a simple comment, or to relate to other South American countries, because they are not in the same conditions.
What I can tell you easily is that in Venezuela, if there is a famine, that the supply of water and energy is controlled by the State and it is bad, that there is also a shortage of medicines, gas or gasoline (in an oil country), and that even the cash money is scarce.
On whether people are really free, I would say that depends on the definition and their interests, there are many people who are freer, not only in Venezuela but throughout Latin America, than in the United States or Europe, and this is because there is not enough institutionality, and many people are out of the system, so they live in complete anarchy. But this freedom is completely lost in the matters in which the State gets involved, because regulations of all kinds abound, especially, but not only, in Venezuela, where you can't even sell your house at a price that seems to the government unfair, to mention just one of the absurd regulations.
I could leave my house, take a gun, shoot someone in the middle of the street, go back into my house, wait for an ambulance and the police patrol to arrive to pick up the body, and leave. Believe me, I would not be imprisoned. But if I decide to do something publicly and hinder the government, then regardless of whether it is my right, then they will give me an ultimatum, if I do not do what they say, then I will pay the consequences. In short, I can do everything as long as it does not bother the government.
And finally, no, people don't organize themselves, and they don't form communities or anything similar, because as I said in the post, they have become accustomed to serving the government, if things go wrong, there will be no innovation on the part of the people, the only solution will be to change the government. If the government can not be changed, some leave the country, as is happening on a large scale, and some others will live far from the state, in anarchy, as is happening with most of the population.
I feel that there is a kind of infantilism and irresponsibility, accompanied by a strong victimization, which prevents people from taking charge of their own affairs (for this is that socialism is chosen in the first instance), so that much less will be formed a communal government or a form of organization that has real results. Maybe only a few exceptions. And far from being taken steps to eliminate these evils, are increasing with paternalistic governments, an increase that is not only occurring in Venezuela or Latin America, but also is taking place, from what I can see, in Europe and the U.S.
Everything I said, although I refer mainly to Venezuela, would happen in any other South American country if it were in the same situations as this one. Because the real differences between countries are very few.
However, as I said at the beginning, the situation is much more complex to explain in a comment.
I'm very sorry to hear that. What are your own considerations? Would you leave your country and know where to go? Do you have a wife or children, parents, siblings? Where are the many who have already left?
Whether a government is actually exercising its separation of powers in a fair manner can actually be seen, as I see it confirmed, in the way the police behave towards the people. Germany cannot be compared with the USA and I would be careful with other European countries. The police here are well trained and you can't just do violence to someone and get away with it. I often see cops who are decent and behave reasonably. You never hear anything about policemen shooting someone or being afraid of them. On the contrary, I have often received friendly help from them. There is certainly a lot to criticize and the fear of state authority is always evident in large demonstrations, where, however, the people themselves behave heatedly and imprudently, so that fronts arise. Last year's G8 summit was one such example. I don't think much of the hate-spreaders and the pessimists who never see a way out and spread their resignation everywhere as if the world has already perished.
The paternalistic aspirations of the state may be wanted by the majority of my fellow men and so it is up to me to put up with it, because I will not change it if people feel ineffective. This is a problem and I think the most realistic way to deal with it is to do what I think is right and to bear as much responsibility as possible for those I get hold of.
In fact, I assume that people long for leadership, even if this is considered negligent or wrong, because it's only in such a short time that we've come through a rapid technical development that the mentality doesn't fit with the technology. Once fear is the driving factor, many decisions may not be very wise or well thought out.
As I understand from your words, you personally see no room for manoeuvre. You spoke of exceptions: Do you have opportunities to support there? Would you put your life in danger and be willing to sacrifice it? I don't ask for an answer to these very personal questions, because I have no right to your response.
The Venezuelan State, and everything that touches, especially the security forces, conspire against people. The State has a life of its own despite the people, and by controlling natural resources lives without really caring about the streets.
The problems in Venezuela are not due to lack of capacity or training, they are due to lack of will.
If similar situations occurred in Germany, the results would be different, because the wealth of Germany does not reside in natural resources but in human resources, as in all of Europe or North America, so they are disparate situations that can not be compared. From there to tyrants in developed countries are more destructive and oppressive than the tyrants of less developed countries.
I am not pessimistic about the future of Venezuela, as they say, the longest day must have its end, what must happen will happen, nature is not unfair.
Good that you say that. People actually get kind of pessimistic reading and seeing what is bad in the world. We need to attach some hope to it.
An interesting yet a challanging post...I felt like reading an academic paper, thank you.
Regarding content I'd like to add my comment if you'll allow me;
Independency is nothing but a piece of paper if a state is not independent economically. Regular citizens cannot regulate economical choices that effect their lives so they need a political system to make the voices to be heard.
Unless the society keeps away from dealing the real causes but struggles with fancy words like democracy or human rights it seems it'll go on as it has been for centuries...
Being a statist or not the key point is to have the control on the economical sources: gold, oil, human for the sake of the common good for the nation I believe... for better lives and for better future..
I like reading about Latin America, history and politics, see many similarities in other regions in some certain cases. I can offer you to have a search about our great leader M.K. Atatürk. I really wonder what you'll find as hints for your region...
Regards from Türkiye :)
This is a fine piece of academic work. It's a bit long, too long for the average reader, but it deserves to be widespread. I agree with the fundamental premise:
When we see people still applauding, following and justifying the worst politician ever to have governed Venezuela, the grossest and most corrupt political clan, we can't but agree with your argument.
The fear of the slaves who are corrupted in themselves because they have been deprived, sometimes from birth, of any sense of self assertion or consciousness still prevails in many Venezuelan people. After almost 20 years of chavismo, a whole generation was born for whom no other referent exists, no other way of ruling, of speaking.
It is overall a very sad scenario we live over here, and more sadly yet, as you have rightly pointed out, it's a regional malady. Any of the countries that are doing relatively well now, can relapse anytime. For Venezuelans who are now trying to rebuilt in Perú, Chile or Argentina, that would be a double tragedy.
It's not nice...but...
That's true, that is why I mentioned illiteracy, but we would have to see if development arises before or after educational development, because almost all countries in Latin America have been better in the past than today, the golden age of each one gave in the past, and I don't know if the IQ score was higher then.
It is also curious in that map, that a country like North Korea or China have such a high score, which is quite suspicious, the first because it is in such deplorable conditions, and the second because it has a population of over one billion, that is to say, the people with more IQ that are always a minority, should be diluted among so many.
...apart from the Ashkenazi Jews, East Asia has the highest IQ av.
This pretty well documented in many papers I've read..
Lucy, the connection you may be insinuating between failed states and low IQ is precarious. If China's IQ is so high, why are they now coming out of millennia of abject poverty and failed governance? Why is Spain in the state it's in? Why are Greece and Italy, the birthplace of modern western progress, not higher? Without explaining more what you mean, this image risks the appearance of "my IQ can beat up your IQ" ego boosting. No? Still, I think a connection may exist, but it's quite multivariate. Maybe you can explain a little more?
It is much more complex.... like you said.
For example,... if the East Asian IQ is highest, why did the Japanese/Chinese not industrialize before the west, for example..?
Seems like an obvious assumption, right?
It's an incorrect one however.
This is referring to average IQ. When the average IQ is higher generally, production does not increase (they are all too busy thinking, , to do any work..or something..lol)
Lower IQ's can mean higher industrial output..
It is not an answer, or a panacea to the worlds ill's - it's a tool to see reality clearer.
There is certainly no 'ego IQ' battle, and there's room for everyone...Everyone has as much value as anyone else.
But to not use the closest scientific tool we have, to measure intelligence and acknowledge that differences exist in the name of political correctness is just ....well...stupid.
....there is no successful state with an average IQ under 92...
What I think might be the case (sadly by first hand experience) is that independence derives from action, and action is inversely proportional to words. The more energy spent on this type of overexplained diatribe, the more one inhabits the head and not the heart...and we keep repeating and disserting our victimhood until we believe in its merits and in our grandiose ability to verbalize our excuses for life not being what it could be. I can tell you from personal experience, this is dangerous ground.
Hi @vieira, you just brought a great article to this platform. I enjoyed reading about Latim America. Thanks for sharing your knowledge. Upvoted.
b.b.