The General in his Labyrinth - Bolívar or Musharraf?

Reading the New York Times online this morning, I realize that my history paper is actually very relevant to current events, in particular Musharraf stepping down from his military role in Pakistan.

The paper assignment was to read The General in his Labyrinth by Gabriel García Márquez and discuss how it relates to wider themes in the history of Latin America in the nineteenth century (the topic of our class). The book tells the story of the last nine months of Simón Bolívar's life, and flashes back throughout to earlier times. The flashbacks really give a sense of how far he had fallen.

Bolívar believed in the importance of continental unity, that South America should be united under one government. He gradually became more pragmatic in his goals, but he still had too much of a focus on unity, and on order. His focus on order led him to take dictatorial powers, which in turn made him excessively unpopular. In the book Bolívar is a pathetic figure because he continually attempts to regain either power or popularity but cannot. At the end he says "How will I ever get out of this labyrinth!" He was lost in a labyrinth of the disintegration of his government, his regrets, and his inability to stop grasping for power.

In today's article in the NY Times, here is the part that I thought was particularly relevant to Bolívar:

In a speech after taking the oath, he defended his record in power, saying that he had always intended to lead the country toward democracy and to remove his uniform, but had to act in the interests of Pakistan’s stability. He said he had to impose the emergency and delay removing his uniform because of a clash between state institutions, namely the judiciary and the government, and the growing threat of terrorism.

“There is an unrealistic or even impractical obsession with your form of democracy, human rights and civil liberties, which you have taken centuries to acquire,” he said, addressing the diplomats.

Full article here.

Bolívar said very similar things. He advocated a transition to civilian government and believed that at some point a civilian government would be necessary. When he took dictatorial powers he believed them necessary in order to preserve order (echoed in Musharraf's phrase "in the interests of Pakistan's stability"). Bolívar faced more insurrections than strife within the government, but like Musharraf he saw a state of emergency.

The paragraph about democracy is also very relevant. Bolívar admired the government of the United States, going so far as to suggest that it might be a perfect government. However, he did not think that Latin America was ready for such a government.

If you replaced Pakistan with Venezuela, the clash between state institutions with a clash between powerful military politicians, and terrorism with insurrections, Bolívar easily could have made Musharraf's statement.

My history professor recommended another book by García Márquez, Autumn of the Patriarch. He says that this book combines elements of all Latin American dictators.