CIAO DATE: 09/2008
April 2008
The Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies
There appears to be an inherent tension between populism, old and new, and the institutions of representative democracy. This paper focuses on those intrinsic contradictions through a systematic analysis of old and new populism and of its relationship with political democracy. At the core of those tensions is the question of personalization versus institutionalization of power. “Old populism,” as I term it, appears as the most salient and paradigmatic Latin American response to the crisis of oligarchic rule in the 1930s and 1940s. The continuing process of “desoligarquización” may help us to explain the emergence of “neopopulism.” In contrast to old populism, which emerged in the middle of an authoritarian wave, neopopulism has emerged in the middle of a democratic wave, and thus out of the dynamics of electoral democracy. No doubt neopopulist leaders have a formal democratic legitimacy. However, neopopulist regimes appeal to the superior quality of the leader, who appears as the redeemer and the embodiment of the people and the nation. Populism is not the real problem in Latin America; rather, the real problem is the factors that cause populism, namely, the persistence of poverty and inequality, and the decomposition of traditional political institutions and elites in the region. Finally, I shall argue that Hugo Chávez is not Latin America, and Latin America is not Chávez. He may be the most visible and strident political figure, but he is not the most representative one. In fact, he is the exception and not the rule.
Resource link: Democracy and Populism in Latin America [PDF] - 235K