Populism

Introduction: Populism, a ubiquitous and often contentious term in contemporary political

discourse, is not a monolithic ideology but rather a political style or strategy that fundamentally
claims to represent the "pure people" against a "corrupt elite." This political phenomenon is
characterized by its dual nature: while it can be inclusionary, fostering mass mobilization and
giving voice to previously marginalized groups, it also frequently exhibits exclusionary or
authoritarian tendencies, potentially undermining democratic institutions and civil liberties. The
enduring relevance of populism in Latin America is particularly notable, rooted in a complex
history marked by profound inequality, weak institutional frameworks, and a tradition of
charismatic leadership. These factors have created fertile ground for populist movements to
emerge and thrive, offering seemingly simple solutions to deep-seated societal grievances. As
Cas Mudde articulates in his seminal work, "The Populist Zeitgeist" (2004), populism can be
understood as a "thin-centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two
homogeneous and antagonistic groups: ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite.’" This
definition highlights the Manichean worldview often adopted by populist leaders, framing
political struggles as a moral conflict between virtuous ordinary citizens and a venal, self-serving
establishment. To further elaborate on the multifaceted nature of populism, it is beneficial to
consider a broader range of definitions from prominent theorists:

 Ernesto Laclau in "On Populist Reason" (2005) views populism not as an ideology but
as a political logic that constructs a "people" through the articulation of diverse demands
under a common empty signifier. For Laclau, populism is a fundamental dimension of
politics itself, rather than a specific political current.
 Jan-Werner Müller in "What Is Populism?" (2016) defines populism as a specific
moralistic imagination of politics, where populists claim that they, and only they,
represent the "true people" and that all other political contenders are illegitimate. This
definition emphasizes the anti-pluralist and anti-establishment core of populism.
 Ben Stanley in "The Thin Ideology of Populism" (2008) (as cited in Mudde and
Kaltwasser, "Populism: A Very Short Introduction," 2017) defines populism as "a set of
ideas that emphasizes the antagonism between 'the people' and 'the elite' and argues that
politics should be an expression of the general will of 'the people.'" This highlights the
voluntarist and majoritarian aspects often associated with populist governance.
 Kurt Weyland in "Bounded Radicalism: Latin American Populism in Comparative
Perspective" (2013) offers a more instrumental definition, viewing populism as a political
strategy through which a personalistic leader seeks to exercise direct, unmediated rule
over a large, unorganized following. Weyland emphasizes the leader-follower dynamic
and the often clientelistic nature of populist movements.

Theoretical Framework

Our analysis of populism in Latin America will largely draw upon a discursive-ideational
approach, primarily informed by the works of Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser.
This framework views populism as a "thin-centered ideology" that can attach itself to various
host ideologies (e.g., socialism, nationalism). It emphasizes the core antagonistic relationship
between "the people" and "the elite," and the moralistic framing of politics.

1
While acknowledging the contributions of other scholars such as Ernesto Laclau's post-
structuralist perspective on the construction of "the people" and Kurt Weyland's focus on
populism as a political strategy, the Mudde-Kaltwasser framework offers a particularly robust
lens for examining populism's manifestations in Latin America. It allows for the identification of
common characteristics across diverse cases (e.g., anti-elite rhetoric, direct appeals to the people)
while also accounting for the varying policy outcomes and impacts on democratic institutions.
By focusing on the ideological core and political style, this framework helps to explain why
populism can appear in both left- and right-wing forms and why its consequences for democracy
can be so varied.

2. Types of Populism

Populism, despite its common characteristics, manifests in diverse forms depending on the
underlying ideological leanings and socio-political context. These variations reflect different
approaches to defining "the people" and "the elite," as well as distinct policy agendas.

Type Features Example

Left-wing Anti-elitist + redistributive policies, often targeting Hugo Chávez
populism economic inequality and advocating for social justice. in Venezuela
Right-wing Anti-elitist + nationalist/anti-immigrant, emphasizing Jair Bolsonaro
populism cultural identity, law and order, and often protectionist in Brazil
economic policies.
Inclusive Incorporates marginalized groups (e.g., indigenous Evo Morales in
populism peoples, racial minorities) into the political process, often Bolivia
through constitutional reforms or social programs.
Authoritarian Uses democratic support and elections to weaken Alberto
populism democratic institutions, centralize power, and undermine Fujimori in
checks and balances. Peru

3. Historical Evolution of Populism in Latin America

The history of populism in Latin America can be broadly understood through distinct waves,
each shaped by specific regional and global contexts, and marked by different characteristics and
leadership styles.

🔹 1st Wave (1930s–1960s): Classic Populism

This era, often termed the "golden age of populism," emerged in response to the Great
Depression, the crisis of traditional oligarchic rule, and the burgeoning process of
industrialization. Classic populist leaders focused on import substitution industrialization
(ISI), promoting national industries and incorporating organized labor into the political system.
They skillfully used radio and mass politics to forge direct connections with their followers,
bypassing traditional political parties. These movements were often characterized by strong
nationalist sentiments and a focus on labor inclusion.

2
  Juan Perón (Argentina): A quintessential example, Perón's rise was inextricably linked
to the labor movement. As documented by Torcuato Di Tella in "Latin American
Populism in Comparative Perspective" (1965), Perón's regime (1946-1955) combined
industrial development with significant social welfare programs, strong labor unions, and
a highly personalistic style of governance, epitomized by the figure of Eva Perón.
 Getúlio Vargas (Brazil): Ruling for much of the 1930s and 1940s, Vargas implemented
a state-led development model, expanding social legislation and centralizing power. His
"Estado Novo" (New State) period (1937-1945) saw a blend of authoritarianism and
social reform, laying the groundwork for Brazil's industrialization (Thomas E.
Skidmore, "Politics in Brazil, 1930-1964: An Experiment in Democracy," 1967).
 Lázaro Cárdenas (Mexico): President from 1934 to 1940, Cárdenas oversaw sweeping
land reforms and the nationalization of the oil industry, mobilizing peasants and workers
through the official party. His populism was deeply rooted in the Mexican Revolution's
ideals of social justice and national sovereignty (Alan Knight, "The Mexican
Revolution," 1986).

🔹 2nd Wave (1980s–1990s): Neopopulism

This wave emerged as a reaction to the "lost decade" of the 1980s, characterized by economic
crisis, hyperinflation, and IMF-imposed structural adjustment programs. Unlike their
predecessors, neopopulist leaders often embraced neoliberal economic policies while
maintaining a populist appeal through anti-party rhetoric and effective use of mass media,
particularly television, to communicate directly with the electorate. They presented themselves
as outsiders who would clean up corruption and bring efficiency to government.

 Carlos Menem (Argentina): President from 1989 to 1999, Menem, despite his Peronist
background, implemented extensive privatizations and market-oriented reforms, a sharp
departure from traditional Peronist policies. He maintained popularity through
charismatic appeals and a focus on economic stabilization, as analyzed by María Moira
Mackinnon and Steve Bell in "Carlos Menem and the Crisis of the Traditional Political
Class" (2000).
 Alberto Fujimori (Peru): Elected in 1990, Fujimori dismantled the traditional political
system, implemented drastic economic reforms, and famously carried out an "autogolpe"
(self-coup) in 1992, dissolving Congress and suspending the constitution to combat
terrorism and corruption. His rule is a prime example of authoritarian populism (Steven
Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, "How Democracies Die," 2018, discuss such erosions of
democratic norms).

🔹 3rd Wave (2000s–Present): 21st Century Populism

Often referred to as the "pink tide" or "Bolivarian Revolution," this wave was a response to the
perceived failures of neoliberalism and a renewed focus on anti-neoliberal policies, pro-social
rights, and indigenous inclusion. Fueled by the commodity boom, these leaders expanded
social spending and often sought to reshape their countries' constitutional frameworks.

3
  Hugo Chávez (Venezuela): Elected in 1998, Chávez spearheaded the "Bolivarian
Revolution," advocating for "21st-century socialism," nationalizing key industries, and
expanding social missions. His rule was characterized by intense anti-US rhetoric, direct
appeals to the poor, and a gradual erosion of democratic institutions (Javier Corrales
and Michael Penfold, "Dragon in the Tropics: Hugo Chávez and the Political Economy
of Revolution in Venezuela," 2015).
 Evo Morales (Bolivia): The first indigenous president of Bolivia, Morales (2006-2019)
focused on indigenous rights, resource nationalization (particularly natural gas), and
social programs, transforming the country's political landscape and constitution (Bret
Gustafson, "New Languages of the State: Indigenous Resurgence and the Politics of
Knowledge in Bolivia," 2009).
 Rafael Correa (Ecuador): President from 2007 to 2017, Correa implemented a
"Citizens' Revolution" focused on anti-neoliberal policies, social investment, and a new
constitution. He maintained high approval ratings through direct communication and
strong state intervention in the economy (Catherine M. Conaghan and James M.
Malloy, "Unsettling Statecraft: Democracy and Neoliberalism in the Andes," 1994,
discuss the political context that led to such shifts).

4. Key Characteristics of Populism

Despite the varying forms and historical contexts, certain core characteristics consistently define
populist movements and leaders.

Feature Explanation Example

Charismatic Populist leaders often forge a Eva Perón in Argentina, through her
leadership direct, emotional, and impassioned speeches and welfare work,
unmediated connection with created an almost mythical bond with the
"the people," presenting "descamisados" (shirtless ones) (Marysa
themselves as their authentic Navarro, "Evita," 1993). Similarly, Hugo
voice and savior. Chávez (Venezuela) cultivated a cult of
personality through his tireless presence on
state media and direct communication with
citizens via his "Aló Presidente" program.
Anti-elite A central tenet of populism is Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil) frequently railed
discourse the creation of an "us" versus against the "old politics," "establishment," and
"them" narrative, where "the "corrupt system," often including members of
people" are portrayed as Congress, the judiciary, and traditional media
virtuous and exploited, while in his accusations, as explored by Alfred P.
"the elite" (political, economic, Montero in "Illiberalism in Latin America"
media) are depicted as corrupt, (2020).
self-serving, and detached.
Mass Populist leaders often rely on Perón's worker rallies in Argentina were
mobilizatio large-scale rallies, direct iconic, drawing massive crowds that affirmed
n appeals, and the creation of his popular mandate and showcased the power
social programs or patronage of organized labor under his leadership. This
networks to mobilize and strategy is also evident in the Chávez

4
 maintain the support of their government's extensive social "missions"
followers, fostering a sense of which provided healthcare, education, and food
collective identity and purpose. subsidies, effectively mobilizing and rewarding
loyalists (Kirk A. Hawkins, "Venezuela's
Bolivarian Revolution: A Political Economy of
Radical Reform," 2011).
Weak Populist leaders often view Alberto Fujimori's "autogolpe" in Peru
institutions independent institutions (1992), where he dissolved Congress and
(judiciary, legislature, suspended the constitution, is a stark example
independent media, electoral of a populist leader using popular support to
bodies) as obstacles to dismantle checks and balances, as discussed by
implementing the "will of the Maxwell Cameron and Viviana Patroni in
people." They may seek to "The Neoliberal Experiment in Latin America"
undermine, capture, or bypass (2000).
these institutions to centralize
power.
Use of Populists strategically use Hugo Chávez’s weekly "Aló Presidente" TV
media various forms of media, from show was a primary tool for direct
traditional broadcasting to communication, allowing him to address the
social media, to bypass nation, announce policies, and confront critics
established political parties and without mediation. More recently, Jair
media outlets, communicating Bolsonaro heavily utilized social media
directly with their base and platforms like WhatsApp and Twitter to
controlling the narrative. disseminate his messages and mobilize his
supporters, as highlighted by Federico F. T.
Traianou and Leonardo B. Valente in
"Digital Populism in Brazil" (2020).

5. Populism and Democracy: A Double-Edged Sword

Populism can both strengthen and weaken democracy:

Positive Negative
Gives voice to the marginalized Centralizes power in individuals
Increases political participation Undermines judicial independence
Challenges corrupt elites Erodes civil liberties and press freedom

📖 Theorist: Guillermo O'Donnell’s theory of “delegative democracy” – where presidents are

elected democratically but govern autocratically.

6. Populism and Economic Models

 Classic populists: ISI (Import Substitution Industrialization) and state-led

development
 Modern populists: Resource nationalism, social spending, and sometimes clientelism

5
📌 Example: Chávez used oil revenue to fund welfare but led to hyperinflation and collapse.

7. Populism vs. Political Parties

 Populists often criticize traditional parties as corrupt.

 Tend to build personal movements rather than institutionalized parties.
 May weaken democratic representation and create electoral volatility.

8. Case Studies (Detailed Section)

🔸 Argentina – Juan & Eva Perón

The Peronist movement, led by Juan Perón and profoundly influenced by his wife Eva, stands as
a foundational example of classic populism in Latin America. Rising to power in the mid-20th
century, the Peróns forged a powerful alliance with labor unions, transforming them into a
crucial base of support. Their government implemented an expansive welfare state, providing
unprecedented social benefits, healthcare, and education to the working class. This was coupled
with a strong emphasis on personalism, with the figures of Juan and Eva Perón becoming
central to national identity and political loyalty. Eva Perón, or "Evita," through her impassioned
speeches and charitable work, cultivated a deep emotional bond with the "descamisados"
(shirtless ones), embodying the populist ideal of a leader intimately connected to the common
people. As chronicled by Marysa Navarro in "Evita" (1993), her efforts in social welfare and
her iconic image were integral to the movement's popular appeal and enduring legacy, even
decades after her death.

🔸 Brazil – Jair Bolsonaro

Jair Bolsonaro's presidency (2019-2022) marked a significant shift towards right-wing

populism in Brazil. His political style was characterized by a virulent anti-left discourse,
targeting the Workers' Party (PT) and socialist ideas. He appealed to a broad base of conservative
nationalists, emphasizing traditional values, law and order, and often using inflammatory rhetoric
against political opponents, feminists, and environmentalists. Bolsonaro's campaign and
governance relied heavily on a conservative nationalism that sought to restore what he
perceived as Brazil's lost glory and moral integrity. His use of social media to bypass traditional
media and connect directly with supporters was a hallmark of his populist strategy, as examined
by Federico F. T. Traianou and Leonardo B. Valente in "Digital Populism in Brazil" (2020).

🔸 Bolivia – Evo Morales

Evo Morales's rise to power in Bolivia (2006-2019) represented a groundbreaking instance of

inclusive populism and the "pink tide" in Latin America. As the country's first indigenous
president, Morales championed indigenous rights and sought to redress centuries of
marginalization. A cornerstone of his economic policy was resource nationalization,
particularly of the country's vast natural gas reserves, aiming to ensure that the wealth generated
from these resources benefited all Bolivians. His government pursued a form of socialism that
prioritized social spending, poverty reduction, and greater state control over key economic

6
sectors. Morales's populist appeal was rooted in his direct connection with social movements and
his ability to articulate the long-standing demands of Bolivia's indigenous majority, as discussed
by Bret Gustafson in "New Languages of the State: Indigenous Resurgence and the Politics of
Knowledge in Bolivia" (2009).

🔸 Venezuela – Hugo Chávez

Hugo Chávez's presidency (1999-2013) was a defining example of 21st-century socialism and a
particularly impactful form of populism in Latin America. Leading the "Bolivarian Revolution,"
Chávez implemented extensive social programs ("missions") funded by the country's vast oil
revenues, aiming to redistribute wealth and empower the poor. He championed a form of
participatory democracy, encouraging direct citizen involvement through communal councils,
though critics argued this often served to bypass established democratic institutions. Chávez's
rule gradually moved towards authoritarianism, characterized by the erosion of judicial
independence, increasing control over media, and the persecution of political opponents. His
charismatic leadership and ability to cultivate a direct, emotional bond with his followers were
central to his power, but also contributed to the highly personalistic and eventually autocratic
nature of his regime, as analyzed by Javier Corrales and Michael Penfold in "Dragon in the
Tropics: Hugo Chávez and the Political Economy of Revolution in Venezuela" (2015).

9. Criticism of Populism

While populism can offer compelling narratives and bring about significant social changes, it
faces substantial criticism regarding its long-term viability, democratic implications, and policy
outcomes.

Firstly, populism often oversimplifies complex problems, reducing nuanced societal challenges
to a simplistic binary of "elites bad, people good." This Manichean worldview can hinder
productive dialogue, compromise, and evidence-based policymaking, as solutions are presented
as straightforward battles against a malevolent force rather than requiring intricate policy design
and negotiation.

Secondly, a significant concern is populism's tendency to become authoritarian over time. As

highlighted by Jan-Werner Müller in "What Is Populism?" (2016), populists, by claiming to be
the sole authentic representatives of the "true people," delegitimize all opposition as enemies of
the people. This anti-pluralist stance can lead to the erosion of democratic checks and balances,
undermining judicial independence, attacking independent media, and suppressing dissent,
ultimately transforming democratic systems into illiberal ones.

Thirdly, populist policies often prioritize short-term popularity at the cost of long-term
policy. Driven by the need to maintain popular support, populist leaders may implement
economically unsustainable policies, such as excessive social spending without a corresponding
increase in productive capacity or tax revenue. These policies can lead to fiscal crises, inflation,
and economic instability once the initial populist surge wanes or external economic conditions
deteriorate.

7
Finally, the sustainability of many populist projects, particularly in Latin America, often relies
heavily on economic booms, such as high commodity prices (e.g., oil, mineral exports). When
these external conditions change, and revenue streams diminish, populist governments frequently
face severe economic challenges, leading to a decline in their ability to deliver on promises,
increased social discontent, and sometimes political instability. The experience of Venezuela
under Chávez and Maduro, where the collapse of oil prices exacerbated pre-existing economic
vulnerabilities, serves as a stark illustration of this dependency.

10. Conclusion

Populism, particularly in the Latin American context, is a multifaceted and dynamic political
phenomenon that defies simplistic categorization as inherently good or bad. It is, instead,
profoundly context-dependent, with its manifestations and consequences shaped by specific
historical trajectories, institutional configurations, and socio-economic conditions.

In Latin America, populism has undeniably served as a powerful vehicle for opening political
spaces for the marginalized. It has given voice to segments of the population historically
excluded from power, articulated their grievances, and in many instances, led to significant
social reforms and a greater recognition of diverse identities. The classic populists incorporated
labor, while the "pink tide" leaders championed indigenous rights and social inclusion,
demonstrating populism's capacity to challenge established hierarchies and foster a sense of
collective empowerment.

However, this inclusionary potential often comes with a significant trade-off: the erosion of
institutional norms and democratic safeguards. Populist leaders, by framing politics as a
direct expression of the "people's will," often view independent institutions—such as the
judiciary, legislature, and independent press—as impediments rather than essential components
of a healthy democracy. This can lead to the centralization of power, the weakening of checks
and balances, and a gradual slide towards authoritarianism, as evidenced in cases like Fujimori's
Peru or Chávez's Venezuela.