When liberty dies: Considerations about the assassination of Gaitán.

By: Juan David Díaz Paniagua.

“I am not a man; I am the people”.

INTRODUCTION
My purpose in this work is to speak about the assassination of Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, a
political leader in Colombia in the twentieth century, but I am going to speak about that
assassination with a philosophical perspective, and that is why I pretend to establish some
ideas that could be pointed out like my own interpretation of a concrete historical moment.

Before  starting with some events in the “Bogotazo” I want to emphasize in two different
facts which happened  in the same historical process, in the first place, there was a murder,
an assassination (with every implication that this word has) and, in the second place there
was a revolutionary movement which wanted to change the order of Bogotá, with the
purpose to establish communism ( ideology opposed to the ninth conference which was a
North American organization, that organization had in its topics to analyze the influence of
communism in Latin America) against the prevailing conservative government of Ospina,
that is to say, the disorders of  April 4th 1948 were not directly generated by Gaitanʹs death,
because the Bogotazo was a violent reaction of people, people led by different forces and
different purposes, and these people were not only showing the pain for Gaitán, the riot was
not consistent, logical, with the ideas of Gaitán, it is evident when we see the contradictory
actions of the people.

To show that, I am going to divide the text in three parts: first I hope to show some facts in
which it is made evident the contradiction between the murder of Gaitán and the reaction of
people; second I think to describe some political ideas of Gaitán that cannot be inscribed or
equalized for another type of ideologies (like the communism or the liberalism), finally I
would like to write some consequences of those facts, showing that the higher consequence
is not the death of Gaitán, rather, the death of  the Colombian emancipatory project.

I
The first action that shows the contradiction between the rebellion and the murder of Gaitán
was the murder of Juan Roa. Juan Roa was the murderer of Gaitán, obviously Roa was a
fundamental piece to discover the intellectual author of Gaitán's murder, that is to say, the
true guilty, but the people did not understand that reason, Juan Roa was murdered, tortured
by the crazed mob, that fact made impossible to clarify who was behind of Gaitán.

However, it seems to be that the first action could be a reaction against the murderer of
Gaitán, and it is evident that the death of Juan Roa Could be consistent with the reaction of
people (currently, for example, we see how many people hit the robbers when they are
discovered, it is the same historical phenomenon) but the second action was not exactly a
reaction result of the rage, or pain; because the people following the communists and the
other influences, (like the radio) which incite to violence, the radio (with some
communists) made the people more furious than without guidance or direction.

Another action was the destruction of the principal newspapers that aided  Gaitán, in
contrast it is interesting to see how the newspapers (like El Espectador and El Tiempo)
which were against Gaitán, was not destroyed, it seems that in the rebellion there were
other type of people, those people wanted to take advantage of the situation for imposing
their ideas, it is more evident when we know that Fidel Castro (in that period a student in
Colombia, but with communism ideas) was present in the riot, but with that I do not say
that Fidel Castro was the intellectual author of  Gaitanʹs death, I only say that Castro shows
the presence of different ideologies in that riot.

II

Why did the people do that? Because the people were not led only by the pain,  here there
were other influences, and for those reasons the Bogotazo and the murder of Gaitán were
not the same fact, the people did not only destroy Gaitanʹs allies,(when the people should
attack the enemies of Gaitán) also the people destroyed  a lots of catholic buildings and
specially the principal church of Bogotá and with sexual violations to nuns and priests, but
Gaitán (in his life) was not against the church (but neither the contrary position), if  he were
hence: why did the people  attack the catholic church?  The influence of Catholic Church
was unknowing for the Colombian people, but no for the communists, and high class.
In another place, the principal inconsistency with the Bogotazo and the murder of Gaitán is
that Gaitán never looked for the war as a way for getting the “big Colombian
dream”, Gaitán Thought that was possible the peace if the high class did not sink the poor
class, Gaitán did not like to impel a special faction (conservatism, liberalism or
communism) he liked that rich and poor could live the same rights and obligations with the
country.

It is necessary to understand that Gaitán had thought a supra ideology which was not
covered by others ideologies, it is clear that Gaitán was with poor people, but never as a
liberal, Gaitán discovered a new form to make political actions, when Gaitán shouted in the
principal parks he did not shout like a liberal lawyer, he shouted like a human being, and
better, as a people. According to Gaitán the people are superior to whatever ideology and
that is why Gaitán was against the high class (in fact, Gaitán was against any class), he
looked for the peace of Colombia, for love to Colombian people in the same mode that
Camilo Torres.

While the people made the war in the streets and in principal places in Bogotá, the body of
Gaitán was alone in a near hospital, without his people and brothers, also we can see that
the Colombians had forgotten the true reason of riot, that phenomenon is seen in our days,
when the people are focused in other things less important than the Colombian reality.

III

But if we saw some contradictions in the murder of Gaitán with his ideas, there are more
contradictions in the consequences of his death, if Gaitán never agreed with the war, why
did his death bring bad organizations like the guerrillas? The guerrillas were fighting for the
poor people, but with “the only way in Latin-America1” the weapons, all this movement
arose after Gaitánʹs death like a form to fight against the high class.

But also the capitalism in Colombian in anachronic situation, spoilt the situation, because
there was more poor people and less rich people what made bigger distinction between high
and low class,  the people thought that the capitalism was the solution, also we should
consider that not only the capitalism made possible the development of the societies, that
1
According Fidel Castro.
progress has been considered recently as  one recoil ,that is to say,  the named development
is creating progress although is generating decadence in the human nature, the humans do
not distinguish when is moving forward and when is backing.

Camilo Torres said that if he died, for that reason revolution could not be extinguished, but
when he died also did the revolution, in the same way happened with Gaitán, when Gaitán
died, a man did not die, a symbol died, an ideal, an emancipatory project which was not
opportune for high class of Colombia.