Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

Latin American Populism in the Twenty-First Century

2014; Duke University Press; Volume: 94; Issue: 3 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1215/00182168-2694382

1527-1900

Steve Ellner,

Populism, Right-Wing Movements

This volume uses a well-defined methodological approach that sets it off from the vast scholarly literature on the topic of Latin American populism. The book consists of seven country chapters and six theoretical ones that systematically explore three categories of populism corresponding to distinct historical contexts: classical populism, whose heyday was the 1930s and 1940s; the neopopulism of the 1990s, which combined populist styles and strategies with neoliberal economic formulas; and the radical populism of the twenty-first century, most plainly represented by Hugo Chávez. The chapters examine different manifestations of populism and pose the question of whether individual governments corresponding to one of the three categories can be considered truly populist. In addition, the authors focus on continuities and contrasts in an effort to determine whether a populist tradition exists in specific countries. In his chapter on Ecuador, for example, César Montúfar maintains that Rafael Correa's political success “indicates that populism is a predominant trait in Ecuadorian politics” (pp. 320–21). Cynthia McClintock, in her discussion of Peruvian leaders Víctor Raúl Haya de la Torre, Juan Velasco Alvarado, Alberto Fujimori, and Ollanta Humala (prior to his presidential election), argues along similar lines, while recognizing obvious variations. John Crabtree, in his particularly informative chapter on Bolivia, argues that in spite of the “strong legacy of populism” derived from the 1952 revolution, “Bolivia's tradition of popular organization and social pressures from below” has shaped the relationship between the government of Evo Morales and society, in the process helping to minimize expressions of populism (pp. 392–93). In her chapter, Ana María Bejarano argues that the “apparent reemergence of populism in Colombia” (p. 348) might be applied to Álvaro Uribe's discourse but not to his political project, which made no effort to incorporate members of the popular sectors or to promote redistribution of wealth. Finally, in his chapter on Argentina, Hector Schamis argues for a structural definition of populism based on socioeconomic features spanning the political life of Juan Domingo Perón. Schamis discards style as too superficial a factor to use in defining the phenomenon and concludes that for Latin America “populism as a political actor is history” (p. 177).As a result of the basic differences among the volume's contributors, which the editors recognize in the concluding chapter, the book as a whole fails to provide defining characteristics of populism. Schamis's view, for instance, which rules out neopopulism and twenty-first-century radical populism as useful analytical categories, is not shared by the editors and other authors (including Kurt Weyland and Kenneth Roberts, who did much to develop the concept of neopopulism). In another chapter that contrasts sharply with others in the book, Francisco Panizza argues that Latin American populism does not necessarily imply “top-down leadership” (p. 114). Panizza insists on the “transformative power of populism” (p. 115) and its appeal not so much to the “people” in general but rather the unincorporated sectors, who are favored by the government's “politics of recognition and … redistribution” (p. 97). His essay is thus more in line with the work of Ernesto Laclau, which Panizza explicitly incorporates into his analysis and which views populism in a highly positive light. This appraisal is diametrically opposed to the one put forward by the editors and various authors who emphasize populism's vertical relationships, particularly in the case of Chávez's Venezuela and Correa's Ecuador.In the introduction, the editors recognize that Chávez and other leftist leaders are for the most part characterized as authoritarian populists only when viewed through the prism of liberal democracy. This observation regarding the diversity of democratic models and the need for a pluralistic approach is useful for understanding the widespread appeal of populist leaders among voters who are highly committed to democracy and democratic values. The editors and some of the contributors, however, point to “plebiscitary democracy” and “permanent campaigning” (p. 26) as fundamental features of the political system in Venezuela, Ecuador, and elsewhere without acknowledging that these pejorative concepts are related to liberal democracy, as opposed to participatory or radical democracy in the tradition of Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Indeed, the opposition itself in these nations reinforces plebiscitary democracy by viewing the results of local elections as tantamount to an appraisal of central government policies. Similarly, in attributing sharp polarization (or polarization “fostered from above” [p. 364]) to the behavior of populist governments and omitting reference to tactics employed by the opposition, the editors fail to consider political contexts. Certainly, in cases of an opposition that engages in violent and disruptive tactics (as has occurred in Venezuela and elsewhere) or has consistently failed to recognize government legitimacy, the government's reaction needs to be judged by different standards than in nations where the opposition is a “loyal” one. In spite of these shortcomings, the volume's comparative approach, both in national and continent-wide contexts, leads to valuable insights that will most likely serve as points of reference for future research and debate.