“Para afianzar esa libertad tan deseada, no basta solo la muerte de bolívar”

Antibolivarism and the venezuelan constitutional dilemma of 1830

Abstract

In this paper, I analyze the assumptions under which the political and intellectual elites produced a new constitutional legitimacy for Venezuela following the dissolution of Gran Colombia. The article focuses on reconstructing the prevailing discursive fields within the context of the Congreso de Valencia, the assembly that drafted the Constitución Política del Estado de Venezuela in 1830. In this scenario, I examine the intense political debate in which various actors deconstructed the foundations and made explicit the conventions and contingencies of previous republican systems — the First Republic of Venezuela (1811), Gran Colombia (1819, 1821), and the Bolivarian project (1824) — thus impacting, either positively or negatively, the redefinition of the constitutional architecture. Concurrently, I examine how ruling elites faced the challenge of balancing liberal, republican, and authoritarian ideas to establish a fragile public order in the face of threats of civil war and social disturbance. In particular, it is interesting to note how the Venezuelan public debate expressed the tension between two models of republican organization: the logic of the providential man, who carries and spreads republican virtues, and the proposition of a social pact among citizens (the sane part of society). Finally, I propose an analysis of the political and symbolic aspects of the rejection of Simón Bolívar and the antagonism between the new Republic and the Liberator's legacy. Through these approaches, I aim to contribute to an understanding of the inherent conflicts in the configuration and accommodation of the Venezuelan state in the 19th century.