Juan g. Ayala column, Professor in the Department of studies humanistic of the Universidad Técnica Federico Santa María. Carlos Fuentes noted that José de San Martín did not want to stain their hands with blood, had failed in the war of independence, he was not going to make peace. The Liberator believed in strong, not in men strong institutions.

In this perspective chavism twisted the other liberator manifest destiny, Simon Bolivar, who expressed the need to liberate the continent from the Spanish yoke, but at the same time in the letter of Jamaica urged around political processes regulated and stewards, came out of a dictatorship and is unwilling to enter into another.

sides of the coin

Dictatorial regimes personalize and concentrated power. In 2011 it is at the doors of anoint dynasty Chancellor Maduro Chávez Frías, heir of the manipulated Bolivarian ideology, much as it was the ideal Chilean portaliano, abused by Pinochet. It seems that politically immature countries need to be jineteados by a caporal, covered in a single idea, how hard it is to make Government from many ideas and institutions!, there are people who must comply with their obligations within a concert organized, regulated and controlled.

Chileans marked scene may prove far, Venezuela depends on a person’s health from the Commander depends on the lives of many, Caribbean question?, no. The same goes to the “American English”, silence or speech of a person it seems that depends on the fate of Chile.

Venezuela and Chile suffer of messianism, have not created institutions, still profitando of the good will of a person. Mature democracies have generational cycles, builds leadership from school and universities, places where should reflect it and build from the ideas. Venezuela to shelter from oil and served their tremendous inequalities everlasting hardly could do so, it could therefore be moderately exculpada, however Chile does not.

This country had strong institutions which were destroyed by a brutal dictatorship, but gave the coup de grace is the conclusion, that for the sake of consensus democracy shaved and annulled the new ideas and the need to breathe ‘new politics’. And what may be necessary in the beginning, consolidated it the hierarchs of the Chilean politburo, drowning their own parties from left and Centre political youth. And as the right has always cost you to fly an ideology, not to be confused with a statistical recipe page with a Bible under his arm, Chile then comes to depend on a person, such as happens to Venezuela; they are two sides of the same coin.