In 1826, Colombian patriots led by Bolivar had overthrown Spanish rule and "'He'd put through a constitution for Bolivia that gave him extraordinary powers as lifetime president...'" -Time Patrol, p. 274.
The Venezuelan commander, Jose Paez, revolted. Bolivar marched from Lima to Bogota, assumed martial-law presidential powers and moved on Venezuela where, however, he "'...made a peaceful settlement with Paez and issued a general amnesty.'" (p. 282)
Bolivar never took any public money for himself and was "'A good ruler...'" (p. 282), according to Everard of the Patrol. Exaltationists in Bogota "'...had made the time stream unstable....'" (p. 276) but the Patrol managed to thwart their plans behind the scenes. Thus, we are not given a full biography for Bolivar because that is not necessary for this story.
21 comments:
Hi, Paul!
Truth to say, I regard Simon Bolivar rather coldy. What GOOD did his breaking up of the Spanish Empire ultimately DO to Latin America? Was the Spanish Empire really that bad? So bad it justified the generations of war, civil war, repeated military dictatorships, etc., in practically all the nations which emerged from the Empire's breakup?
There might have been another alternative, recall. I remember Manse Everard telling the Exaltationist leader that one of the rebel leaders in Argentina negotiated seriously with Spain, for a time, over a compromise: King Ferdinand's brother Don Carlos would become King in Argentina, and that in turn might well have led other parts of the former Empire to uniting under Don Carlos as a legitimate ruler.
So, I'm inclined to regard Simon Bolivar as being, at best, only a well meaning fool.
Sean
What is good is that this kind of discussion arises at every step while reading PA's fiction.
Hi, Paul!
Quite true ! Commentators have remarked that one of the things which marks out the works of Poul Anderson is his FAIRNESS, his willingness to consider alternatives other than the obvious one, that the losing side might well have a POV just as valid as the winning, etc.
Sean
Sean,
The defeated revolutionary character is treated with respect in MIRKHEIM and that novel shows every possible social and political view among its characters.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
That is true, what you said about the revolutionary leader we see in MIRKHEIM. At the same time, however, that leader's cause was worse than that represented by his enemies. And what we see recorded of the later phases of his short lived dictatorship on Hermes makes it plain it was RIGHT to defeat the revolutionary.
Sean
Sean,
Yes, I believe in social changes but not imposed from above as it was done there. Hermetian society changes in any case because of a lot of different movements among its citizens.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
We agree on this: that "social" change forced on us by coercion, violence, and tyranny is bad. Good! We might well disagree about some social changes which were not violently forced on us. My view is that not all social changes are likely to be good.
Sean
Sean,
No, indeed, I can think of many changes that I would not like to see!
Paul.
Sean,
Have you read LORD OF THE WORLD and THE DAWN OF ALL by (Robert) Hugh Benson? His idea was that there should by monarchies by divine right without Parliaments and that adultery, apostacy and heresy should be capital offenses.
I believe in church-state separation - so, of course, the Church of England should be disestablished.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
Dang! Interesting questions, and I have to go to work. Yes, I have read one of Benson's novels, but not those. I'll reply at greater length when I have more time. Drat!
Sean
Sean,
We have all the time in the world.
Paul.
And remember the Communist revolutionary in THE DEVIL'S GAME? Anderson treated him sympathetically, even if had didn't agree with him.
Best Regards,
Nicholas
Nicholas,
Yes, very much so.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
No, I have not read Fr. Benson's LORD OF THE WORLD and THE DAWN OF ALL. The Benson novel I read, as a boy, was COME RACK! COME ROPE!
And I disagree with Fr. Benson's far too radical views in favor of absolute monarchies unchecked by some kind of legislative body. And rephrensible though adultery, apostasy and heresy are, I would not have the state punish persons guilty of them with death. And I too agree on the desirability of the state not controlling the Catholic Church or any church (which is how I would interpret "separation of church and state").
I am a conservative, which means I favor a LIMITED state which has to obey its own laws and respect the rights of the people. My conservatism also means I'm relatively indifferent merely to FORMS of government. My view is that what is truly important is that the government a nation has be accepted as LEGITIMATE, whatever its form may be. That means, depending on history, custom, law, religion, etc., the state could be either a monarchy (whether hereditary, quasi hereditary, or elective) or republic, so long as it is accepted as legitimate.
My views about the state and the desirability of putting strict limits on it can be traced back to thinkers like Edmund Burke, the men who wrote the US Consitution, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Aristotle, etc.
This seems a good place to offer some reflections on the British state or monarchy. As it currently exists, the House of Commons in Parliament is the dominant part of the government, with the PM chosen by the majority party. More and more, power has been concentrated in the Commons at the expense of both the Crown and the House of Lords. Frankly, this makes me uneasy, because I can't help wonder if too much power has been placed in the Commons.
Formally and technically, I know the sovereign retains all the powers departed kings and queens once held. But, actually, the PM governs (altho the sovereign retains the right to be kept informed, the right to warn, and the right to advise). And it would be considered almost a crime for the sovereign to refuse the Royal Assent to any Act of Parliament. And, in public, at least, the sovereign is supposed to be neutral in controversial matters.
Would it really be so terrible if the sovereign was able to merely give his OPINION in public about public affairs? Should it be considered a constitutional crisis for the sovereign to refuse his assent to an Act of Parliament? Is it RIGHT to force him to assent to laws he may either loath or consider foolish and unwise?
I think the way the US Constition handles the matter of the President vetoing laws passed by Congress might possibly be adopted by the UK. That is, a President can veto any act of Congess--but Congress can reverse the veto if both Houses agreed to do so by a two thirds majority. My thought was that if both Houses of Parliament voted by either a simple or a two thirds majority to overrule a royal veto, it could do so. Yes, I know that would need special arrangements and it would return some power to the House of Lords. But I don't think that would be bad, considering my concern about the Commons holding too much power!
Sean
Hi, Nicholas!
Yes, your comment reminded me of how sympathetically Poul Anderson treated Orestes Cruz in THE DEVIL'S GAME. Despite Cruz holding beliefs Anderson rejected as totally false.
Truth to say, as shown by real history, I suspect Cruz would either have been shot (precisely because of his misplaced idealism) by the Castros, Che Guevaras, and other hard, ruthless men who have come to power in every communist regime or become as cruel and ruthless as them.
Sean
Sean,
Thank you. Way more than I asked for!
Catholicism has such a spectrum - from fascism to liberation theology.
I would prefer to make the Commons more representative and accountable rather than to counterbalance it with unelected bodies.
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
I don't quite know what you mean by "fascism." To me, fascism is merely another left wing variant of socialism/communism, as Jonah Goldberg demonstrated in his book LIBERAL FASCISM. And all forms of totalitarianism is rejected by the Catholic Church. And "liberation theology" has been condemned as well by the Church.
I'm sorry, I disagree with you about attempts at making the Commons more "representative and accountable." My view is that for all practical purposes the Commons is as "representative" as reasonably possible. I still would prefer to counterbalance the Commons with other bodies, even if unelected. I think it's more important to put CHAINS on the power of the state, not obssess over making it more "democratic."
Sean
Sean,
Sorry, "fascists" as in Musso, Franco, that guy in Portugal and the Irish Greenshirts. Also, Oswald Mosley was a British Fascist although, of course, not Catholic.
OK about disagreements. My main purpose is to commend PA's excellent presentation of these issues in his fiction rather than to re-open the discussions yet again - although, of course, that happens as well! (And any discussion here is welcome.)
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
Problem is, "fascism" as you used the term is not that simple, it gets more complex when you investigate. Francisco Franco, for example, was not truly a fascist in the sense Mussolini would use it. As time passed, he took great care to gradually emasculate the Falangist party of any true fascism. And, during the last 15 years of his rule of Spain Franco pursued very decidedly NON socialistic policies in the economy, guided by economists who had been trained in the "Chicago school," disciples of Ludwig von Mises.
And Franco also made arrangements for the restoration of the monarchy after he died. And that in turn led to the restoration of parliamentary government under former King Juan Carlos.
All this does not seem very "fascistic" to me! I would call Franco more of an old time military dictator.
And Benito Mussolini always considered himself a man of the left. In fact, he was once one of the leaders of the Italian Socialist party before he left it to found his own more nationalistic minded brand of socialism. Was Mussolini's rule of Italy ultimately a disaster? Certainly it was! But he was nowhere as brutal as Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler.
The "greenshirts" are new to me! Never heard of them before. Hope they soon fade away!
And, yes, I have heard of Sir Oswald Mosley. I remember reading of Churchill's indignation at how roughly he and his wife were treated when they were arrested.
And I certainly agree with you on how skillfully Poul Anderson manages to present complex and ideas and problems in his works.
Sean
Sean,
The Greenshirts were few. Some of them fought for Franco. I do not think there have been any of them for a very long time!
Paul.
Hi, Paul!
Oops! I thought the Greenshirts was a group existing and active NOW. Apparently they were active mostly the in 1930s and '40s. Looks like they were replaced by far more effective extremist groups.
Sean
Post a Comment