Bolívar was well aware of the lack of political education among Spanish Americans brought about by the nature of Spanish rule. This was the limiting factor in his thought. Certain political institutions would be unacceptable because of the inability of Spanish-Americans to support them and to conform to them. Thus, for example, Bolívar always maintained federalism to be an ideal form of government, yet he recognized that federalism could well lead to disintegration of the nation, and, in his later works, he pointed out that this was indeed happening.

To Bolívar, republicanism linked with responsibility was the absolute minimum to be sought. He would laud the advantages of a republican system, and, unlike San Martín or Iturbide, he would reject completely the idea of imposign a monarchy on the pretext of establishing public order. Some have maintained that his proposed life-president with power to name a successor is indeed an "uncrowned monarch." Yet to maintain this is to overlook the essential difference. Monarchy presupposes that political power is transferred to another person by the right of his family relationship to the preceeding monarch, while the life-president selects his successor on the basis of ability instead of parentage. Instead of a closed aristocracy of birth, Bolívar supported an open aristocracy of merit. Perhpas "meritocracy" would best describe his proposed leadership of the state.

The influence of Montesquieu is evident in Bolívar's accepting the possibility that laws and political institutions may be different in different places and different times for different people. He often referred to L'Esprit des lois.

Bolívar felt that the realities of international politics required that the Spanish-American states form a whole. This was of course in contradiction to the Spanish imperial tradition which treated Spanish America as several kingdoms held together, in theory, only by allegiance to the King of Spain, but also, in fact, by the Spanish imperial bureaucracy. Historically, it made sense for the Spanish-American countries to develop independently. Yet Bolívar was aware that any such development would weaken their collective independence.

Given the above attitudes, it was logical for Bolívar, in the Cartagena Manifesto, to cite the use of a federal system as one of the reasons for the fall of the 1811 First Venezuelan Republic. It made sense for him to espouse, as an alternative, the British constitutional system with its unitary form of government, as in the Angostura Discourse.

Recognizing that different countries were coming into being, Bolívar first talked in terms of "union" of these countries into larger countries. When he saw the ideal of one country of the former Spanish-American colonies was not going to be achieved, he modified his views to save what could be saved. Thus he held together, more by personal magnetism than by any other means, the country of Colombia, consisting of New Granada, Venezuela, and Ecuador. He recognized that, while Colombia had helped achieve freedom for Peru and Bolivia, these countries could be persuaded to unite with Colombia only on a federal basis. Thus, Bolívar's belief in union and his belief in a unitary system collided. He supported the Andean Federation since, at the time, he felt union was more important than the unitary system. When this failed, he supported smaller nations as a practical matter.

The best exposition of Bolívar's own ideas on the organization of the state is perhaps the draft constitution that he prepared at the request of the Bolivians. He proposed a unitary state, with a life-president, and a system of indirect election of some officials, based possibly on the decimal representation of the French Constitution of the years VIII and X. A moral power is to be exercised by the censors. They are to oversee the operation of the school system, the behavior of individuals, the protection of the constituion, and the rights of the people. In effect, there is a tricameral system in the legislature, with tribunes, senators, and censors having differing legislative responsibilities. The life-president, proposed in the Angostura Discourse, again appears in the draft constition. Here, however, his powers are extremely limited. He can appoint only a few officials, but among these is his successor, who must be approved by the congress. The judiciary is to be chosen by the senate from triple lists proposed by the electoral college, except for the supreme court, which is chosen by the censors from a triple list prepared by the senate. The "democratic Caesarism" of the life-presient is what is usually recalled of the Bolivarian constitution.

In the field of international relations, Bolívar proposed the extension of the balance of power idea to the entire world. Originally it referred to a balance in Europe. Bolívar supported a balance composed of the Americas on one side and of most of Europe on the other. This balance, when held in equilibrium, would, he felt, maintain the independence of Spanish America. To help keep this balance, he felt that England should ally itself with the Spanish-American countries.

As an internationalist, Bolívar supported the Congress of Panama, which he hoped would develop a league of the American states to defend themselves against a Spanish reconquest. Although the Congress of Panama was a failure, it was surely the beginning of Latin American cooperation, and, as such, the forerunner of the Organization of American States. Some would also ascribe the idea of world organizations, such as the League of Nations or the United Nations, to Bolivarian beginnings. At any rate, the example was there to be followed.

It is interesting that Bolívar, who considered himself as a military man above all, found himself offered political power throughout his career, although he felt incapable of exercising both at once. The supreme irony, of course, was that this staunch republican was often placed in the position of being compelled to accept dictatorship to preserve the state. In the end, he found that even his strong determination could not maintain the political institutions he considered diserable.

Perhaps the instances of military men assuming political power that are still common in Latin America may be ascribed to the model set by Bolívar, but there is a considerable difference. Bolívar always assumed political power, limited or total, in the hope that the action was a temporary or transitory one. He intended a return to republican normality as soon as conditions permitted. He did not seek political power with the intention of retaining it. The caudillo, mouthing democratic ideals, claims he wishes a return to democratic principles, but, in fact, he has no such intentions. The comparison does not hold.

As with all great men, it was difficult for his contemporaries to evaluate Bolívar's contributions to their political history. Time has allowed a proper assessment of Bolívar's by Latin Americans. Today, he is revered as the Liberator of five Andean nations, Colombia, Ecuador, Venezuela, Peru, and Bolivia. In other Latin American nations, respect for his achievements in the military and political spheres transcends national boundaries. Nor is Bolívar simply a historical datum without relevance to the world today. His struggle for independence in his part of the world has been repeated in other areas as well.