Rights in Latin America

For the section of Rights in Latin America, I chose two readings, namely the "Augostura Address", the writings of Simon Bolivar, and "The State and the Individual in Latin America: An Historical Overview" by Margaret E. Crahan. I chose these two because I found that they present two differing perspectives of the political past in Latin America as well as it's strides towards the respect of human rights. In a way, I think that it's the comparison of an optimistic versis a grimmer, perhaps more realistic perspective of the state of human rights in Latin America.

In his Augostura Address, Simon Bolivar outlined the future of the state of Venezuela. He began by saying the he was purposfully stepping down because he did not believe in one individual holding a position of power for too long (this, in itself, must be viewed with some irony, considering how long Bolivar himself stayed in power, long enough to arguably be defined as a dictator). He went on to declare his belief in Decomocracy, basing himself on contemporary (at the time) examples. However, he also reconized the failings of the democracy, in the sense that it did not automatically equate with greatness or fairness. He did, however, believe in the right of popular autonomy, and saw democracy as the only clear route to achieve this goal. Something that struck me in this reading is the way that he spoke of the homogenous intergration of all segments of society into an equal whole. I believe that he is much to be applauded for this ideal, though I can't help but think it somewhat naive. He did not believe that there should be any distinction between, for example, Indigenous people and rich land owners of European descent, and I can't help but agree: there shouldn't. However, historically, his country had not necessarily respected different ethnic groups as equal, and that equality has not yet been reached to this day. Bolivar's writings are difficult to read because I have trouble equating his ideals with his actions, and what has transpired of them. He declares that Venezuela is a great country that will do great things, only to say that it should strive to resemble England. He speaks of popular equality and then says that there should be a House of Lords consisting of people with inherited priviledges. Was banishing such inherited rights one of the tenants of his popular movement? Overall, I find that I have trouble defining Bolivar, or seeing weither I agree with him or not. There is too much of a gap between words and actions, between original beliefs and articulated ideals.

In Crahan's text, a historical overview of the political foundations of Latin America is offered. Unlike Bolivar, Crahan offers an emphasis on enduring class and racial inequality, and the roles that these have played on the construction of Latin America. She argues that enduring structures of inequality find their roots in colonial models that have replicated themselves over time. According to her, structures of inequality are so pervasive, and have been so ingrained (on the Iberian model), that Latin America is, in a certain way, doomed to replicate it. What is also shown is that this structure of society believes social disparity to be natural, even self evident. This structure of class differences is also replicated, which, in my opinion, severely impinges in the development or continuation of human rights. I believe that for real change to be achieved, there must be a break from this overly rigid model of society in order to allow for more inclusiveness.