Why does the president incur extravagances such as accepting an interview with an insolent comedian as Juanpis or using the flag that Bolívar used in the war to death, the most excessive chapter of the life of the Liberator? Many conjectures can be made that could behave two challenges. One, to the serious journalists who would not answer relevant questions and instead accepts that the humorist mounts with the presidential figure. And two, that the evocation of the tremendous Bolivarian decision to end all the Spaniards contrary to the cause of independence entails a veiled threat to the congressmen opposed to their reforms. It is not clear and the respectability of the presidential institution is suspended. They are two examples of the eccentricity of the current president.
We were instilled from childhood the passionate cult to Bolívar. My dad was a professor of Bolivarian Chair and left a complete collection with the most important thing that would have been published about the life of the Liberator and father of the homeland. In our own and in other generations we learned to love Bolivar and hate Santander. We had to drink in the sources of my Simón Bolívar and the Santander of Fernando González. With the help of time and purification of readings about history, I have promised political devotions to recognize Bolívar not as half -herself but as an exceptional human being no longer as a hypocritical conspirator but as a constructor of legal criteria and legality, with everything and the contradictions of all times. Neither Bolivar was the founder of conservatism, nor Santander was liberalism. The two parties have been evil rehearsals of political thought and action.
From the war to death it is not reasonable to make a panegyric. The only reading of the so -called Decree shows that it was rather an instructive to justify the extermination of the peninsular and canaries residents of the New Granada. Bolivar issued it on June 15, 1813 in Trujillo, Venezuela, in the so -called admirable campaign. Thus it is not advisable to interpret the story with the presentist meaning, the text may seem cruel and scary today. He says, for example, in this essential paragraph: “Every Spanish who does not conspire against tyranny in favor of the just cause by the most active and effective means will be had as an enemy and punished as a traitor to the homeland, and consequently it will be irremissibly passed through weapons.” The end was peremptory: “Spaniards and Canaries, counting on death, even being indifferent, if you do not actively object in the gift of the freedom of America. American, have life, even when you are guilty.”
The use of the red and black flag that symbolized the war to death carries a serious connotation in the present. The same, the use of Bolivar’s sword. Why and for what? And the interview with Juanpis is one more extravagance, ridicule.
