How Dangerous is Populism for Democracy?

This paper seeks to resolve one of the key tensions in the literature on populism: whether populism is a threat to democracy or the best means of renewing and deepening democracy. The author argues that rather than defining populism in terms of certain definite outcomes, we should view populism as a symptom of crisis, and one capable of producing a variety of possible effects, some positive and some negative. The argument is pursued in terms of highlighting certain shortcomings in terms of the dominant approaches to the issue, and also through exploring recent Spanish politics, which has seen an increase in various kinds of populist parties and movements. The renewal of democracy in Spain is offered as an example of how populist initiatives can have beneficial outcomes, as well as detrimental ones.

Revista Estudos do Século XX

A democracia é considerada, em geral, um bem essencial à sociedade política. O que significa democracia, contudo, é controverso. Como o vinho, a ‘garrafa democrática’ pode conter compostos variados e saber muito diferentemente. Nos anos 2010 a democracia parece presente em todos os discursos - um bem a ser estimado e preservado - e sofrer sob o duro ataque do ceticismo e de avaliação negativa. Voltamos aos anos 1920? Precisaria o mundo - ou ao menos vários países importantes - de uma forma reinstaurada de tutela despótica? É inevitável voltar ao egoísmo político nacionalista em um cenário global avançado? O horizonte turvo das esperanças políticas, econômicas e sociais favorece o reaparecimento de projetos populistas - de esquerda como de direita - que projetam miragens sobre o sentimento de frustração nos espaços sociais. É esse populismo uma ameaça à democracia como valor e como prática? A resposta é ‘sim’, malgrado todas as imperfeições do regime democrático. Após apresentar um b...

Ethics and International Affairs, 2009

Paraphrasing Karl Marx, a specter is haunting Latin America—the specter of ‘‘populism.’’ This label has been attached to a wave of radical left leaders in the region, including Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, Evo Morales in Bolivia, and Rafael Correa in Ecuador. The term is normatively charged. The Mexican politician and scholar Jorge Castañeda contrasts radical populist leaders (such as Chávez and Morales), whom he characterizes as less convinced of the intrinsic value of democracy and human rights, with moderate left-wingers (such as Michelle Bachelet in Chile, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in Brazil, and Tabaré Vázquez in Uruguay), who embrace representative democracy and respect human rights. This division of the Latin American left between ‘‘good’’ social democrats and ‘‘bad’’ populists is open to challenge.

The following paper critically revisits the conceptualizations of populism and democratization within political science, and it addresses the relationship between the two, aiming to refocus our attention on some of the epistemic weaknesses within our discipline. This is part of a larger project that, on the one hand, identifies some of the blind spots or shortcomings in the discipline's democratic theory literature and, on the other, attempts to (re)establish the relevance of political science to diverse and interconnected political realities and practices. For instance, whereas most analyses tend to define the Latin American region as being the locus of several populist and authoritarian regimes (from right to left of the political spectrum), I would argue, based on Ernesto Laclau's and Chantal Mouffe's analyses, that it is imperative and illuminating to distinguish between populist leaders, movements, parties, or regimes and populist " moments " or " moves. " Furthermore, traditionally, when discussing democratization and populism, the focus has largely been on local factors, however, I will contend that-both historically and in the present moment – continental and global geo-politico-economic circumstances and actors significantly explain the (re)emergence of populism and the (de)consolidation of democratic political regimes worldwide, as well as the distortions in our own analyses, as political scientists, of these phenomena.

A Contra Corriente, 2019

To understand the current global surge of populist governments, scholars and commentators have pointed to the harms of neoliberalism, the breakdown of democratic norms (Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018), the characteristics of populism and how they differ from fascism (Finchelstein 2017)), and the affects and experiences that drive support for nationalist leaders (Mazzarrella 2019). I suggest a different, if complementary approach to understanding populism by turning to the specificity and complexity of Latin American politics in the 20 th and 21 st century histories. First, I view populism in the context of Latin American nations'

Constellations, 2007

A specter is haunting Latin America: radical populism. Former presidents such as Fernando Henrique Cardoso and respectable media analysts have cautioned us about the dangers of charismatic and plebiscitary domination for democracy. They have warned us of the risks of irresponsible economic policies. A holy alliance is trying to exorcize the ghost of populism that periodically reappears even though its death has been constantly announced and predicted. 1 In contrast to the apocalyptic warnings of the media analysts and politicians we have an accumulated knowledge of populism that can help us arrive to more nuanced conclusions about its relationships to democracy. Over the last three decades we have seen a renaissance of studies. If previous scholarship based on modernization and dependency theories tied populism to specific economic and social forces, 2 this new wave of research has uncoupled politics from what were understood as deeper structural determinants. Scholars have shown that populism is not necessarily linked to the transition to modernity or to import-substitution industrialization. The unexpected affinities between populism and neoliberalism stimulated research on the politics of structural adjustment under neo-populist leadership. 3 More recently, the nationalist and anti-imperialist rhetoric of Presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Rafael Correa of Ecuador have provoked passionate debates on whether or not we are experiencing a rebirth of radical-national populism. 4 Unsurprisingly, scholars have tended to reproduce the cleavages produced by populist leaders. What for some are authentic forms of expression of the popular will by leaders who empowered those previously disenfranchised, for others are forms of charismatic, authoritarian, and messianic domination. Behind the smoke screen provoked by the praise for national populism or its condemnation we can identify important debates over the meanings and interpretations of democracy. Instead of arguing that populism is the negation or the essence of democracy this article draws on current experiences to explore the uneasy and ambiguous relations between populism and liberal democracy. Populism has been an important democratizing force that has mobilized those previously excluded. It has incorporated common people into the political community. However, the distinctiveness of these processes of inclusion and democratization needs to be specified. What are the forms of political participation and representation privileged by populism? How is democracy understood by the friends and foes of populism? What are the effects of populist rhetoric for the democratization of society? Why do common folk continue to support populist leaders?

Journal of Contextual Economics – Schmollers Jahrbuch: Volume 137, Issue 4, 2017

The recent surge in the number of populist governments coming into power raises the question of their effect on the prospects for democracy. This article uses the limited vs. open access framework – developed by North, Wallis, Webb and Weingast – to evaluate how populist leaders and their parties govern after coming to power. It looks at episodes of populists in power in Latin America, Europe, and the United States. Although most populist governments have kept civilian control of the military, notwithstanding some Latin American exceptions, they have typically moved their societies away from open access and sustainable democracy in several important ways: undermining rule of law in the name of the “will of the people” whom they claim to represent; reducing citizenship rights for unpopular minorities; making rules and their enforcement more personal and dependent on group identity; and hindering a free press and opposition parties that could hold the government accountable and perhap...

entral European Political Science Review (CEPSR), 2024

It is difficult to talk about populism in Mexico without first referring a little to Latin America. In the region there has been a resurgence of populism, which implies a political tendency that appeals to the figure of the people, around a charismatic political leader, with authoritarian overtones (Müller, 2016; Urbinati , 2020; Salmoran , 2021). Due to their very dynamics (single leadership, little institutionalization, social polarization), populist governments do not usually stay in power for long nor do they manage to completely destroy democratic regimes. This has been the dynamic in recent years (Weyland , 2024); however, this scenario could begin to change.

In this paper, I advocate a rethinking of the conceptualization of populism, a political phenomenon that is frequently discussed in inter-American debates, but rarely explained in a convincing way. The characterization of political actors as “populist” should not be considered sufficient. Sometimes, especially when it is used as an umbrella word for left-wing and right-wing mobilizations, it can even be an obstacle for the discussion of political contents. Based on the works of Ernesto Laclau, I propose to understand populism not as a type of regime, movement or person, but as a political logic that can occur in many different ways and contexts. This logic, which can reach different extents, starts with a crisis of the hegemonic power block and decreasing legitimation of its discourse. Heterogeneous demands of dominated societal sectors are expressed against the status quo. These demands have to be brought together for a broader mobilization and the possibility of a new hegemony. In the article, the example of the MAS in Bolivia is used to illustrate how the populist logic presents itself.