The cult of Simon Bolivar is part of the Venezuelan imagination

• The master and doctor in History analyzes for The newspaper the use of the figure and legacy of the Liberator, 238 years after his birth, throughout the history of Venezuela. “Bolivarianism did not subside under democratic governments; on the contrary, it continued to deepen,” he says. Main photo: Daniel Hernandez / Climax

This text was originally published on July 24, 2021.

On December 17, 1830, Simón Bolívar died at the age of 47. That day he suffered a cardiorespiratory arrest that caused his death.

Myths abound around the figure of Simon Bolivar, the Liberator. It is no coincidence. For more than 150 years, the cult of his image has been, perhaps, state policy. From the government of Antonio Guzman Blanco, through authoritarian regimes and the democratic era to Chavezism, with different nuances, the alteration of historical memory has resulted in two currents: those who exalt his legacy and those who deny his historical importance.

This is how he explains it The newspaper Rafael Arráiz Lucca, a member of the Venezuelan Academy of Language, lawyer, poet, teacher and doctor in History. “Bolivarianism did not subside under democratic governments; on the contrary, it continued to deepen. The cult of Bolívar is almost a factor in the Venezuelan collective imagination. I would not dare to say that it is exclusive to military regimes,” he says. In that context, he says, the duty is to build critical thinking.

—If we had to name an origin, a starting point for this messianic construction of Simón Bolívar in national life, where would you locate it and how would you characterize it?

—Without a doubt, the Bolivarian cult was started by Antonio Guzmán Blanco. It began during his first government in 1870, when he established the bolivar as the national currency (the silver peso disappeared); when he created the National Pantheon and when he prepared for the celebration of the centenary of the birth of Simón Bolívar, in 1883, and a great apotheosis took place. In addition, Guzmán Blanco ordered a replica of the statue of Bolívar in Lima and it was established in the Plaza Mayor of Caracas, which was renamed Plaza Bolívar, and he urged that the main squares of all the towns and cities of Venezuela be renamed Plaza Bolívar. So there is not the slightest doubt that he was the one who started the Bolivarian cult.

Guzmán Blanco, who had a deep French culture, understood very clearly that nationality required national symbols. That is why he turned “Gloria al Bravo Pueblo” into the national anthem; Venezuela had no anthem until then; he turned the Church of the Trinity into the National Pantheon, where the heroes are, that Olympus of the national gods that is presided over by Bolívar and next to him are, let’s say, the lesser gods, the secondary ones. Why does he do this? Because he also understands that in a fractured country, national unity is required. And he conceives national unity around the cult of Simón Bolívar, that the entire nation is reunited around him. It is a political, cultural, symbolic and mythological project.

Antonio Guzman Blanco and Simon Bolivar

—And did you achieve this reunification around Bolívar?

—Yes. From there, the Bolivarian cult began. This cult became much stronger during the dictatorship of Juan Vicente Gómez. Then it became stronger again during the government of Eleazar López Contreras, who even created an organization called the Bolivarian Civics, and then practically all the presidents of the Republic in the 20th century fed the Bolivarian cult. Military and civilian.

—Now, that seems to have intensified especially during authoritarian and dictatorial regimes. Caudillismo seems to have shaped Bolívar, as did Juan Vicente Gómez and Marcos Pérez Jiménez.

—One thing must be said: Bolivarianism did not subside under democratic governments; on the contrary, it continued to deepen. The cult of Bolívar is almost a factor in the Venezuelan collective imagination. I would not dare to say that it is exclusive to military regimes. Tributes, annual celebrations, all the pomp surrounding Bolívar increased. Historians fed it a lot in primary school, in secondary school, and the history of the Republic of Venezuela began to be confused with the biography of Simón Bolívar. Then people began to study the period of independence by studying the biography of the Liberator, as if he had been present at all the events, when that was not the case either. It is 150 years of Bolivarian cult.

—Hugo Chávez, on the other hand, called his political program “Bolivarian revolution” and even changed the name of the country. What, in your opinion, is the worst and the best thing during these years regarding the handling of Bolívar’s image and legacy? Does it correspond to the real Bolívar or to one that was constructed for convenience?

—Actually, Chavez’s interpretative contributions to the figure of Bolivar are minimal, minor. What Chavez does is reproduce what has been said in the Bolivarian cult in the past. There is nothing really new of importance in relation to Bolivar from Chavez’s point of view, except an attempt to want to turn Bolivar into a socialist leader, which we all know he was not, because among other things socialism did not even exist, the communist manifesto is from 1848.

So wanting to turn Simon Bolivar into a socialist leader is a failed project, because people know his history and know that this is not the case. In addition, the ideas that were with Bolivar were liberal ideas, very romantic, because he is very much a romantic hero, which led to the creation of republics all over the world. Apart from that, Chavez’s Bolivarianism was more or less the same as that of his predecessors.

I even, taking the argument to the extreme, find in the Bolivarian myth of Guzmán Blanco’s time, which has been maintained, a symbiosis with the Christian myth, in the idea that Bolívar was a man betrayed fundamentally by (Fransisco de Paula) Santander and by (José Antonio) Páez. This idea that Bolívar was betrayed as Christ was by Judas. The idea that Bolívar was a misunderstood hero like Christ. I believe that there is a transfer of the Christian myth to the Bolivarian myth.

—And what other myths have you seen that have been built around Bolívar in these 150 years?

—The idea that he was a man who never made mistakes, that his thoughts from 200 years ago are valid today because he was a kind of infallible man. That is a myth. All men make mistakes and every thought of any human being refers to the historical situation in which he lived. Transposing Bolívar’s thoughts from 200 years ago to apply them to the current Venezuelan reality is something that can sometimes be done with a current idea of ​​the Liberator, but not in an automatic way. So that thing about the Liberator’s infallibility is, of course, a myth.

—Can Venezuelan messianism be attributed to Bolívar?

—No. If it hadn’t been Bolívar, it would have been someone else. The messianic idea in the villages is an idea that takes root in villages without sufficient education. The idea that someone is going to come to save us from our problems and that we are not responsible for the problems we have is understood throughout humanity, which, in the Venezuelan case, has been embodied in Bolívar, but it could have been embodied in anyone else. The messianic myth and the myth of the golden age, which is also very present, are not necessarily linked to Bolívar.

—On the other hand, this also seems to have a negative influence on the image of the Liberator. There are those who, in their insistence on distancing themselves from the so-called “Bolivarian revolution,” do not value Bolívar and his historical contribution in their true measure.

—Yes, and that is very unfortunate because Bolívar was a very important man, of exceptional intelligence, who made many mistakes, but who was a great military and political strategist. He had many problems as a constitutional architect and, once the war was over, as an administrator of republics, but the importance of Simón Bolívar is something that is beyond all doubt. So that this mythological circumstance surrounding him has damaged the approach of many people towards Bolívar is regrettable. He is a great character who must be studied with critical thinking, with a historical sense, evaluating the Liberator in his circumstances during the 47 years that he lived.

—So, what should be the relationship between the country and Bolívar once this period of weariness with symbolism is over? How can we reorient historical memory around the Liberator?

—Through critical thinking. Loving Bolívar but also studying him critically, with his strengths and weaknesses, with his achievements and failures, as one studies any historical figure, and abandoning mythological studies in relation to the Liberator. That is what must be done.

—And what is the role of the historian in this context?

—Stimulate critical thinking, analyze the context, review the psychology of the Liberator, review all the factors that influenced any decision he made. There are many elements, but in no case should we resort to simplifications, on the contrary, based on complexity.

Related news