Commentary: Bolivarism and the Cultural Compatibility of Independence : CMI-PR

On and off for decades and even centuries at a time, ancient (and recent) Egypt was occupied by foreign powers and civilization, and the thought that this did not have a profound effect on Egyptian culture would be foolish. Arab-American cultural commenter Edward Said was on point when stating that "foreign occupation [became] the very basis of contemporary Egyptian civilization". Shortly before the massive decolonization of Africa and Asia, European imperialists carried the opinion that after their departure the former colonies would not have the capability to run themselves. As little as we like how that sounds, it's partially true: century after century the former colonies were deprived of self-determination, so how can one believe that they can just pick up where they left off when their x-colonizers passed them the torch of sovereignty? After hundreds of years of colonialism, their dependency on an outside force has been etched into their culture. Colonialism to them is as traditional and customary as their food, music, and dance.

Puerto Rico, much like Egypt has also been the prey of centuries of colonialism, but unlike Egypt we have been under another country's flag non-stop since we've been "discovered". Being "colonized" upon is one of our best abilities - it is a process that has been going on for so long that we have actually come to like that colonial status. Puerto Rico's "political history is exceptional particularly for its struggle to achieve, within established colonial rules, the highest degree of autonomy." We've become accustomed and friendly towards powerlessness and a lack of real self-determination. When we are given a choice, we scurry back to our 'care takers' - we have achieved "colonialism by consent" as Yale's Hugo Rodríguez-Vecchini calls it.

Estadistas and populares alike wish to maintain a submission status towards the United States, to maintain a "common defense, common market, common currency, and the irrevocable link of a common citizenship." This is understandable; Puerto Rico is not use to taking care of its own defenses and trade, and a currency that is stabilized by its utilization by a larger more stable world power provides a sense of security. Common citizenship, most importantly provides an 'exit door' for migration - a fact that is commonly overlooked even though it is what we mostly use our U.S. citizenship for more than anything. Puerto Rico is undisputedly over populated and such a problem can only be cured through one of two ways: a decrease in population (which will not happen) or emigrations (which must continue unless we want to breath exhaled carbon dioxide). Puerto Rico does not have the necessary resources and arable land to supply and feed its population without massive foreign investment, and non-independentistas know this. The Estado Libre Asociado and statehood with the U.S. provides Puerto Ricans with the needed fuel to feed their subconscious urge for stability and security. Ask your average estadista what his or her main reason for wanting statehood is, and I guarantee that they will say something along the lines of "economic stability" or the "we cannot live on our own".

To put it bluntly, putting our own defense, economy, currency, and citizenship at our disposal cannot occur without causing massive problems, since culturally we are not programmed for those functions. This trait is not only national, but strongly Ibero-American; just look at how every Latin American country's "sovereigntization" of their defense, economy, currency, and citizenship has transformed into military dictatorship, economic dependency, inflating and unstable currencies, and massive displacement and illegal immigration - all of which themselves have become cultural traits.

Even as a politically independent nation we would most likely remain economically dependent on our foreign trade partners (which would most likely be the U.S.). Let us remember that even recent leftist Latin American revolutions have been fought for "independence". Without "crutches to stand up on", I agree with the non-independentistas that we would most likely fold under foreign pressure and an overflow of responsibilities that we are not really prepared to take on. Many other pro-independence groups see what I'm saying to a smaller degree and suggest a phase-out period (the Puerto Rican Independence Party suggests a period of 10 years). We all know that Puerto Rico could not magically pull from its hat the ability to run itself in such a short period of time. In my opinion, the only way 500 years of colonization could be "deprogrammed" from our culture would be 500 years of decolonization.

Throughout the last few years I have supported independence for Puerto Rico, and even though I acknowledge everything that I have stated above, I still support independence from the U.S. quite fervently. In am in no way suggesting that we partake a 500-year decolonization program; I am actually suggesting that we maintain a type of acquiescence status - just not with the U.S. I will shortly return to the subject, but allow me to change the topic for a moment.

We have all heard of the European Union - that colossal tightening amalgamation of various European nations pushing for common defense, common economy, common currency (as we recently saw with the introduction of the Euro), and common citizenship. Since the "Europe 1992" plan, European borders have slowly began to fade away to the free movement of trade, capital, workers, and services. With each year that passes, the E.U. is transforming into a "United States of Europe" and a stronger political and economic world power. This whole concept was coined specifically for the development of the region and interdependence (in the name of reduced warfare). For all that the E.U. is pushing for (defense, economy, currency, citizenship), their plan has worked and it appears that it will continue working.

For those of you familiar with General Simón Bolívar, then you will be aware that such a union was envisioned (and for a while implemented) within Latin America. Known as the "Columbian Union" or "Gran Columbia", it was constructed of the newly independent former Spanish colonies of Ecuador, Venezuela, and Columbia. The remaining postcolonies would have followed if it were not for disputes over foreign-drawn borders and greedy regional generals and politicians who carved their chunks of power from the area. Bolívar even to stretch the Columbian Union to the Caribbean, where he campaigned to create "an expedition; for the liberation of Cuba and Puerto Rico". "Bolivarism" is a liberal term sometimes used in reference to the ideology of Latin American political unity. The South American struggle for independence is actually quite Bolivarist nature, where South Americans crossed the borders of colonies that weren't theirs In the name of continental independence. "Venezuelan, Columbian, Argentine, and Chilean troops fought side by side, together with Ecuadorians, Peruvians; Bolivians;" and even Puerto Ricans "to liberate the whole of the southern continent". Colony after colony was liberated and in the eyes of the general that led them to independence, their "patria, the[ir] nationality, should be one and the same for all Spanish-speaking Americans; and their motto should be the unity of South America"

The motivation for the C.U. was different than that of the E.U.; Bolívar wanted "a society of sister nations, united, strong, and capable of withstanding the aggression of foreign powers", in his own words. Due to Spanish America's "common; relation to Spain and a common interest in the maintenance of the freedom which they had asserted;" and the envisioned Spanish American cultural homogeneity, "local allegiances were secondary to a general [South] American political allegiance".

We must note and remember that Puerto Rico is only one of the colonies that meant to be part of this union. If the internal collapse of the C.U. and the U.S.' invasion of Puerto Rico never occurred, then we would most likely would be to the Union of Columbia what an estadista wants to be to the Union of the States of America. I do not want membership into the U.S.' union nor do I wish to continue the E.L.A., but membership into a C.U. is ideally my choice. Since the decentralization of Spanish power over Latin America has miserably failed, and our consent to a central federal power has become one of our cultural traits, I feel as if the C.U. is the only way that Hispano-America can increase its standard of living (in Puerto Rico's case, maintain it). The C.U. is the best-suited political structure that I can think of for Latin America and the Spanish Caribbean - feel free to present an alternative.

It is my opinion that if a C.U. is founded, only then will Spanish America be able to nudge itself from economic servitude and 'beggar' status - always with its hand out hoping to attract some foreign investment. "But a Gran Columbia doesn't exist and it probably never will be" your saying. In our case, Bolivarism is not too popular, not because it is a bad idea, but because it has not received any spotlight (the purpose of this essay), but in Latin America many large political parties and states have already support such a movement (maybe not enough to form the union, but enough to spark some dialog). Membership into the U.S. worked quite harmoniously socio-culturally for those territories willing to assimilate into, or already practicing the "mass culture" of the already unionized states, but Puerto Rico lacks both the U.S. "mono-culture" and the urge to assimilate. Why not try to find the assets and protection we need from a power that is more culturally, historically, socially, and mostly compatible? We all know how culturally linked we are to Latin America - a fact that is only strengthened when culturally-tranquil Inter-American marriages occur between Panamanians and Puerto Ricans, and Columbians and Venezuelans - so cultural integration into a C.U. would require no effort at all. Many of our national and Latin American historical figures, revolutionaries, poets, artists, and great minds lived and traveled throughout the whole continent and the Caribbean without any cultural problem - that's why most of them, such as Venezuelan Andrés Bello or Puerto Rico's José de Diego, support some sort of union. The bottom line is, that culturally and historically we have more in common with the "other" America. As both an independentista and a bolivarista, I do want separation from the U.S., but not in the name of sovereignty. I wish not to gain sovereignty from the U.S., but to transfer it to another centralized body - a C.U.