A Critical Assessment of Its Impact on Democracy and Governance in Latin America

Populism, a political phenomenon characterized by a charismatic leader's direct appeal to

"the people" against a perceived corrupt and unresponsive elite, has surged across Latin America,

promising inclusion, redistribution, and a restoration of popular sovereignty. However, as

Christian Houle and Paul D. Kenny argue, the reality of populist governance often falls short of

these lofty promises. This essay delves into their findings, exploring the impact of populism on

democracy and governance in the region, highlighting its potential to undermine democratic

norms, institutional stability, and even its stated goal of achieving social justice.

Defining Populism: The Allure of the "People's Will"

Houle and Kenny ground their analysis in a definition of populism that emphasizes both

ideological and organizational features. Ideologically, populism posits a fundamental antagonism

between "the people," often vaguely defined, and a corrupt elite that obstructs the "people's

will"(Houle & Kenny, 2015p. 2). It thrives on anti-establishment rhetoric, portraying the existing

power structures as inherently hostile to the interests of the ordinary citizen. Organizationally,

populism hinges on the personalistic leadership of a charismatic figure who claims to embody

the aspirations and grievances of "the people," forging a direct and unmediated relationship with

their supporters (p.3). This personalistic bond often transcends formal institutional channels,

relying instead on mass rallies, direct appeals, and a carefully cultivated image of the leader as

the sole champion of the downtrodden.

The core promises of populism are deeply resonant, particularly in societies marked by

inequality, poverty, and a history of exclusionary politics. Populist leaders pledge to empower the

marginalized, redistribute wealth, and dismantle the structures of privilege that have historically
benefited the elite. By invoking the "people's will," they position themselves as the authentic

voice of the masses, promising to break the chains of corruption and usher in an era of genuine

democracy where the people, rather than vested interests, hold the reins of power.

Erosion of the Rule of Law: The Price of Unbridled Power

The analysis by Houle and Kenny reveals a clear detrimental effect of populist

governance on the rule of law, demonstrating a consistent negative association across all

measures. They contend that the intrinsic majoritarianism of populism, which favors the

"people's will" above institutional limitations, often results in the deterioration of legal

protections and oversight of executive authority (p.4). Populists often see the law as a

mechanism of elite control, a means to sustain inequality and silence the majority's voice.

Consequently, when attaining power, they may demonstrate contempt for judicial independence,

use legal structures to further their political objectives and suppress dissident voices via

intimidation or overt repression.

The study utilizes various indicators to assess the rule of law, including indices measuring

perceptions of judicial independence, constraints on executive power, freedom of the press, and

respect for human rights(p.7). Across all these measures, populist regimes consistently score

lower than non-populist democracies and, in some cases, fare worse than autocracies(p12). This

suggests a systemic tendency within populism to concentrate power, bypass established

institutional channels, and prioritize the leader's agenda over the impartial application of the law.

Furthermore, Houle and Kenny find that the specific ways in which populists erode the

rule of law can vary depending on their ideological orientation. Right-wing populists, often

focused on security and order, tend to target human rights, while left-wing populists, driven by
redistributive agendas, may undermine property rights(p.14). This highlights the multifaceted

nature of populist threats to democratic governance, illustrating how its impact can manifest

differently depending on the specific political context and the leader's ideological leanings.

Political Participation: Beyond the Facade of Mass Mobilization

One of populism's central claims is that it can revitalize democracy by engaging

previously marginalized segments of the population in the political process. However, Houle and

Kenny's analysis challenges this assertion, revealing a more complex and nuanced relationship

between populism and political participation(p.3). While populist leaders often excel at

mobilizing their base through rallies, emotional appeals, and the promise of radical change, their

impact on overall political participation, measured by voter turnout in executive and legislative

elections, remains ambiguous.

The study finds that populist rule is not associated with statistically significant increases

in voter turnout compared to non-populist democracies(p11-13). This suggests that the

heightened political engagement often witnessed during populist campaigns may not necessarily

translate into sustained increases in electoral participation. Moreover, the study highlights the

potential for populism to selectively demobilize opposition groups, thereby manipulating the

appearance of popular support(p.19). By controlling media narratives, stifling dissent, and

manipulating electoral processes, populist regimes can create an illusion of mass consensus

while suppressing genuine political pluralism.

Redistribution: The Unfulfilled Promise of Social Justice

While populism, particularly on the left, often champions the cause of redistribution and

social justice, Houle and Kenny’s study reveals a surprising discrepancy between rhetoric and
reality. Their findings indicate that populist governments, even those with a left-wing orientation,

tend to redistribute less than non-populist democracies. This challenges the assumption that

populist fervour for the "people" translates into concrete policies that effectively reduce income

inequality. The study employs a robust measure of redistribution, focusing on the change in the

Gini coefficient before and after taxes and transfers. This methodology provides a more nuanced

understanding of the actual impact of government policies on income distribution than simply

examining public spending or tax rates.

The results are stark: populist rule, regardless of ideological leaning, is associated with

lower levels of redistribution compared to non-populist democratic governance. This holds even

when specifically examining left-wing populist regimes, which demonstrate a less redistributive

impact than their non-populist counterparts on the left(p.14).

This counterintuitive finding raises questions about the efficacy of populist approaches to

achieving social justice. Several factors may contribute to this outcome:

Prioritization of short-term gains: Populist leaders, often focused on consolidating power and

maintaining their direct appeal to the masses, may favour clientelist policies that provide

immediate benefits to their supporters over long-term, systemic reforms needed to address

structural inequalities(p20).

Economic instability: The anti-establishment rhetoric and unpredictable policy shifts often

characteristic of populist regimes can create an unfavourable climate for investment and

economic growth. This can hinder the generation of resources necessary to fund robust social

programs and sustain redistributive efforts.

gestures and grand pronouncements about championing the poor while failing to implement

concrete policies that effectively redistribute wealth and empower marginalized

communities(p.20).

In essence, the study suggests that populism's structural features—its emphasis on personalistic

leadership, its tendency to circumvent institutional checks and balances, and its reliance on

emotive appeals rather than pragmatic policymaking—may inherently limit its capacity to

achieve meaningful redistribution, even when driven by a left-wing agenda.

Implications for the Future of Democracy in Latin America

The findings of Houle and Kenny's study raise profound concerns about the impact of

populism on the future of democracy in Latin America. Despite its initial appeal as a corrective

to unresponsive and corrupt political systems, populist rule often leads to a weakening of

democratic institutions, an erosion of legal constraints, and a decline in the quality of

governance. This creates a vicious cycle where the very conditions that fueled the rise of

populism – inequality, exclusion, and political disillusionment – are exacerbated by its tenure in

power. To counteract populist governance's negative consequences, it is crucial to develop

strategies that address both the symptoms and the underlying causes of its appeal.

Strengthening Democratic Institutions: Reinforcing the independence of the judiciary,

empowering legislatures to effectively check executive power, and promoting a vibrant civil

society capable of holding leaders accountable is essential for safeguarding democratic norms.
Promoting Inclusive Economic Growth: Addressing inequality through policies that promote

access to quality education, healthcare, and economic opportunities can mitigate the socio-

economic grievances that often fuel populist sentiments.

Fostering a Culture of Democratic Dialogue: Encouraging open and respectful debate,

fostering media literacy, and promoting critical thinking can help citizens discern populist

rhetoric from genuine solutions and engage in constructive political discourse.

The allure of populism lies in its ability to tap into deep-seated social and political

grievances. However, its promise of quick fixes and radical change often masks a more complex

reality, one where the pursuit of unbridled power can undermine the very foundations of

democratic governance. By understanding the dynamics of populism and its impact on

democratic institutions, citizens and policymakers can work towards building more inclusive,

equitable, and resilient democracies in Latin America, ones that genuinely empower "the people"

without sacrificing the essential safeguards of liberty and justice.

Houle, C., & Kenny, P. D. (2015). The Political and Economic Consequences of Populist Rule.