Times, circumstances, characters change, but ...

...The motivations of desire, ambition, greed and vain-glory are always present.

Human behavior is always repeated ...

As an example of what has been said, we have Julio Cesar who tried a coup d'état to impose his personal power for life in the Senatorial Republic of which he was a part.

Just like Napoleon Bonaparte, son of the French Revolution and the First French Republic, but who ended up creating his own Empire and crowned himself emperor... That is, a monarch with a crown.

And our Liberator, Simon Bolivar, was the son of the Independent Republic and its main protagonist, having won the war, created the Republic of Colombia, which later by historians, was called as the Gran Colombia, ended up proposing for the newly created Republic of Bolivia, a President for life.

Beyond the differences, which there are, the final purpose, was de facto, of the three, was the lifetime power.

Their decision was expensive and costly, because for the three of them such a purpose cost Julio Cesar his life and Napoleon and Bolivar their exile. Reflecting on these three cases, and others similar, scholars of politics and History, including Marx himself, coined the word "Caesarism" and "bonapartism" to refer to the coup d'état, to impose a new regime, of an autocratic type, based fundamentally on military power.

In all three cases, all three were the product of times of wars and of deep discord and civil wars. Caesar against Pompey, former political allies. Napoleon and the people of the Revolution, former allies.

Bolivar, confronted by former allies and subordinates, Santander in Bogotá, Flores, in Ecuador, Paez in Venezuela. Plutarch would say, "Parallel Lives", and the examples, of similar cases, multiply in History
To stick to the present, there are different, but similar cases in their personal attempts at power.

The authoritarian and totalitarian temptation is always present in history, among the ambitious and power groups. In previous periods, it was almost normal, Caesarism and bonapatism, since Democracy was an ancient idea, but put into practice only in the last 200 years.

But in the midst of the development of the 21st century, with successful democratic experiences, all over the world, we know and people talk very badly about the democratic culture of humanity.

But there is a fundamental difference, in some cases. For example: the presidency of the State, is different from the presidency or prime minister of the government, this prevents dictatorship and guarantees democracy.

Seriously, it is when the head of state and the head of government are the same person, there is no democracy there.

For a good reader of history, I remind you to welcome anything that strengthens democracy, but corruption is one of its main weaknesses and aggressive, polarizing rhetoric. Self-respect is also chosen. It is a great historical truth.

Janitze.🌷