«I desire more than anyone else to see in America the greatest nation in the world, not so much because of its size and wealth as because of its freedom and glory.»
More than two centuries later, one must ask: what happened for that vision to end up becoming a fragmented nation, impoverished and forced to expel millions of its own children? It is almost as if Bolívar himself, in a state of strategic foresight regarding what could happen to Venezuela in the future, mistook the vision of Venezuela as the greatest nation in the world, but annexed to the United States. In other words, the vision was clear: Venezuela becoming great, but as part of a single nation under the United States.
THE 51ST STATE
THE LIBERATOR’S PROPHETIC VISION OR THE CONFESSION OF OUR HISTORICAL FAILURE AS A NATION ANNEXED TO THE UNITED STATES?
There is a popular saying that those who do not know their history are condemned to repeat it. Although repeated endlessly, it contains an unavoidable truth: nations that ignore the causes of their failures end up stumbling over the same stones again and again.
To understand the political, social, and moral labyrinth in which Venezuela finds itself today, it is necessary to go back much further than independence itself, and even beyond the arrival of the Spanish.
Before the conquest, various peoples inhabited the Venezuelan territory, each with different forms of social and political organization.
The Timoto-Cuicas developed relatively complex and hierarchical agricultural societies. The Caribs organized themselves into independent warrior chiefdoms. The Arawaks maintained more egalitarian structures oriented toward trade. The Wayuu built a social order based on family clans with broad degrees of autonomy.
Each of these peoples possessed both virtues and limitations, but they all shared one fundamental characteristic: power was exercised primarily through the personal authority of local leaders.
The arrival of Spain did not merge these cultures into a new institutional model. On the contrary, it imposed a power structure based on the vertical authority of the Crown, governors, encomenderos, and later the colonial elites.
Independence destroyed Spanish rule, but it did not eliminate the inherited political culture. The names of those who governed changed, but the manner in which power was exercised remained largely the same.
The tribal chief was replaced by the caudillo.
The encomendero by the landowner.
The captain general by the strongman of the day.
And thus began a historical constant that has accompanied us for more than two hundred years.
The Venezuelan tragedy did not begin with Chávez.
Nor with Maduro.
Not even with Gómez.
The Venezuelan tragedy began when respect for the law was replaced by obedience to the strongman.
Since then, Venezuela has passed through a long succession of caudillos, generals, political parties, charismatic leaders, and supposed saviors who promised to solve all national problems by concentrating even more power in their own hands.
The result is plain to see.
One of the richest countries in natural resources on the planet became a nation from which millions of citizens fled in search of what their own land failed to provide: stability, legal certainty, economic opportunity, and freedom.
Perhaps the most contradictory characteristic of our political culture is that every Venezuelan considers himself perfectly capable of governing the country, yet very few are willing to voluntarily submit themselves to the rules that make a functional republic possible.
We want honest judges, but we justify corruption when it benefits our own side.
We want strong institutions, but we admire leaders who trample them when they align with our political preferences.
We want democracy, yet too often we behave like subjects awaiting the arrival of a new messiah.
For that reason, it becomes unavoidable to ask an uncomfortable question.
If Simón Bolívar could observe Venezuelan reality today, after two centuries of civil wars, coups d’état, caudillismo, corruption, institutional collapse, and mass exodus, would he still believe that Venezuela’s principal problem is a lack of independence?
Or would he conclude that the true problem has been our inability to build a republican culture founded upon respect for the rule of law?
The provocative idea of turning Venezuela into the 51st state of the United States should not necessarily be interpreted as a literal political proposal.
Rather, it should be understood as an uncomfortable question directed at our collective conscience.
Why have millions of Venezuelans chosen to migrate precisely to countries whose institutions function better than our own?
Why do those who publicly condemn the American model often send their children there, protect their fortunes there, or seek refuge under its laws?
Why do so many Venezuelans prefer to live under rules created by others rather than under those created by ourselves?
Perhaps the answer is as painful as it is obvious.
Venezuela’s problem has never been a lack of resources.
It has never been a lack of talent.
It has never been a lack of heroes.
The problem has been our historical inability to build institutions stronger than the men who govern them.
And as long as we continue searching for saviors instead of responsible citizens, we will continue repeating the same cycle that began centuries ago.
Perhaps the true 51st State is not a territorial annexation.
Perhaps it is the silent confession of millions of Venezuelans who, by emigrating, have voted with their feet for a system that offers them what their own homeland failed to guarantee.
CONCLUSION OF THE HISTORICAL ANALYSIS
«After studying two centuries of civil wars, caudillismo, revolutions, dictatorships, coups d’état, and failed political projects, I have reached a conclusion that many will consider controversial and even unpatriotic. Nevertheless, my conscience compels me to express it.
I believe that Venezuela’s fundamental problem has never been a shortage of resources nor a lack of talent among its people. The real problem has been the historical inability to build stable institutions capable of limiting the ambitions of those who have come to power promising redemption, including coup-minded military officers burdened with liberator complexes.
From the caudillos of the nineteenth century to the revolutionary projects of the twenty-first century, history seems to repeat itself over and over again: a new savior appears, promises to rescue the Republic, and ultimately strengthens his own power while amassing immense personal wealth.
For this reason, I believe that Venezuela’s future should not be sought in a new caudillo, a new political party, or another ideological experiment. Personally, I believe that political, economic, and legal integration with the United States would represent the greatest historical opportunity to guarantee stability, prosperity, and freedom for future generations of Venezuelans, while countering any reckless military figure who might seek to seize power by force.
Many will reject this idea. They are entitled to do so. But they are also obligated to answer an uncomfortable question: how many more times must we repeat the same mistakes while expecting different results?
If history has taught me anything, it is that nations do not prosper solely because of their natural wealth, but because of the strength of their institutions. In my opinion, no nation has demonstrated a greater capacity to transform resources into economic, scientific, and military power than the United States of America.
Some will view these words as political heresy. I see them as a reflection born from the observation of our own history. And if this conviction dwells in my heart, it is because I believe that the mighty YAHWH governs over nations and directs the course of history according to His purposes.
Therefore, I am not afraid to express what I think, even if it proves unpopular. Time itself will judge whether this vision is an error, a utopia, or a possibility that future generations may someday contemplate through different eyes.»
An important historical detail: in the Jamaica Letter itself, Bolívar expressed his desire to see emerge «the greatest nation in the world,» but he also expressed doubts about the viability of a single great American republic because of the geographic, economic, and political differences among the peoples of the Americas.
My modern interpretation of Bolívar’s dream is undoubtedly different, although oriented toward integration with the United States rather than the Hispanic-American confederation envisioned by the Liberator.
George L. F
Recuerda seguirnos en nuestra CUENTA DE WHATSAPP
