After exploring Andres Bello in his book Andrés Bello. The passion for order (Editorial Universitaria), historian Ivan Jaksic compiled with Eduardo Posada Carbó a series of studies on liberalism in Latin America. Officiating as coach of several texts, Jaksic intended Liberalism and power. Latin America in the nineteenth century (Fondo de Cultura Economica) serve to dispel questions about the role of this current in our continent.
You are the author of a study on Andrés Bello Do you put more about liberalism or conservatism?
Bello supported and was a member of the Conservative governments from Prieto Montt, but the ideology of nation building was a liberal independent. Just look at their support for constitutionalism, which is central to limiting the power in a state of law and to establish individual rights. Just look at the principles liberal safety and property that abound in the Civil Code of the Republic of Chile. Just watch their impetus to public education as the basis of citizenship, which entails the vote by way of increasing literacy. Enough, in short, to observe their activity to promote press, without which there is no debate and public spheres. Like many things that happen in our history, it is easier to put a label to Bello as a conservative to understand their ideas. Much is due to qualify as José Victorino Lastarria concisely in this way.
What is the best and worst time for liberalism in Latin America?
are several good moments. I start with the abolition of slavery in Latin America, with few exceptions, was achieved before the United States and without the bloodshed. Add constitutionalism and individual rights, without which there would be a reference for the protection of individuals against abuse of power. In many places, including Chile, was a dike against overly centralized State. Add church-state separation. And say further that liberalism was founded by a noble intellectual tradition. The worst moment? I think the association of some liberals as William Walker's filibusters, which discredited the liberal and nationalist consolidated authoritarian regimes in Central America. Or closer to home, as in Argentina and Chile, the frontal assault on the land and indigenous communities.
Would it have been very different the fate of liberalism in the region in case their ideological matrices would have been more inspired in the American Revolution in the French Revolution?
The French side is only one aspect liberalism, and she clearly objected to the Jacobinism of the French Revolution. In all countries of A. America, was more influential Benjamin Constant, moderate liberal, or a pragmatist as Montesquieu, that the revolution. There is also a liberal tradition that closely followed the U.S., and Mexico, but federalism that characterizes U.S. was not easy to implement in our countries. Nor was it easy to religious tolerance in countries that needed the support of the Church for independence. In fact, been introduced in the first half of the century, the consequences would have been violent, as happened when the state sought to secularize the second half of the century, particularly in Mexico. Hispanic politicians and intellectuals were very eclectic in adapting different aspects of liberalism. There was no ideal model given the conditions.
How true is that liberalism was a rare flower to the force deployed in nations that gained independence from Spain?
characterization is a very abundant in foreign historiography, but also their own. According to her, our Iberian heritage, Catholic and class, we prevented from being true liberals. The ideas of liberalism, therefore, have been imported by an elite. It is said that constitutionalism was a pure farce, a motif that masked the realities of our countries and warlordism, militarism and oppression by other powers. The truth is that liberal ideas soon made their way in our countries and led to much reflection and a great expansion of the public sphere. Setbacks can be explained by the economic, social and political. Arguing that liberalism was an exotic specimen has been left out a complex story in which an abundance of shipwrecks and survivals. But thanks to liberalism and representative government consolidated the division of powers.
Why this book as much of the region passes against the liberal?
I would say that the fundamental principles of liberalism are more relevant than ever. What happened to the world after World War I was the decline of these ideas to the ravages of other ideologies like today would be called totalitarian. Nazism, fascism and orthodox Marxism, all very influential at the time, agreed in their attacks on liberalism. But do not confuse a historic moment with a broader array of ideas. Liberalism came to stay, as individual rights remain central to any society. I mean classical liberalism but not the neo-liberalism, which has other priorities. Today we have the challenges of diversity of fundamentalisms, the internal security of the state, but all leads to the same: people need security, respect, freedom to think and express themselves. The idea with this book is to recover a tradition truncated, incomplete, but no less present. It's good to remember that without a profound experience is more difficult to establish liberal democratic legitimacy. Outstanding issue until today.
0 comments:
Post a Comment