Lulism, Populism, and Bonapartism

• Date: 01 January 2020
• DOI: 10.1177/0094582X19887910
• Author: Armando Boito
• Published date: 01 January 2020
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X19887910

LATIN AMERICAN PERSPECTIVES, Issue 230, Vol. 47 No. 1, January 2020, 134–151

DOI: 10.1177/0094582X19887910

© 2019 Latin American Perspectives

134

Lulism, Populism, and Bonapartism

by

Armando Boito

Translated by

Patrícia Fierro

Lulism is one of the most important political phenomena of twenty-first-century

Brazil. It can be compared to the Varguism that dominated Brazilian politics between 1930

and 1964 in its broad popular but politically unorganized base and its policy of state

intervention in the economy to stimulate economic growth, increase the state’s room for

maneuver against the imperialist countries, and promote a moderate income distribution.

These two variants of populism differ, however, in that Varguism was based on the work-

ing class while Lulism, which may be called “neopopulism,” is based on the marginal mass

of workers and has less potential to destabilize the political process. Bonapartism, to which

Lulism has also been compared, is distinct from it in that what links its leadership to its

base is the fetish of the state based on order rather than the fetish based on protection.

O lulismo é um dos fenômenos políticos mais importantes do Brasil do século XXI.

Pode ser comparado ao varguismo que dominou a política brasileira entre 1930 e 1964 em

relação à sua ampla, mas politicamente desorganizada, base popular, e sua política de

intervenção estatal na economia para estimular o crescimento econômico, aumentar a

margem de manobra do Estado contra os países imperialistas e promover uma distribuição

de renda moderada. Essas duas variantes do populismo diferem, no entanto, no sentido de

que o varguismo era baseado na classe trabalhadora, enquanto o lulismo, que pode ser

chamado de “neopopulismo”, é baseado na massa marginal de trabalhadores e tem menos

potencial para desestabilizar o processo político. O bonapartismo, ao qual o lulismo tam-

bém foi comparado, é distinto dele, pois o que liga sua liderança à sua base é o fetiche do

estado baseado na ordem, e não o fetiche baseado na proteção.

Keywords: Brazil, Lulism, Populism, Bonapartism

Lulism is one of Brazil’s most important twenty-first-century political phe-

nomena. It can be compared to the Vargas movement that dominated Brazilian

politics between 1930 and 1964. Both phenomena have broad popular bases

that are not politically organized, and both have implemented policies of state

intervention in the economy to stimulate economic growth, increase the state’s

room for maneuver against imperialist countries, and promote a moderate

income distribution. Some analysts and observers of Brazilian politics have

characterized Lulism as a new variant of Brazilian populism,1 and André Singer

Armando Boito is a professor of political science at the State University of Campinas, a political

researcher, and the editor of Crítica Marxista. He is the author of Reforma e crise política no Brasil: Os

conflitos de classe nos governos do PT (2018). Patrícia Fierro is an American Translators Association–

certified translator living in Quito, Ecuador.

887910LAPXXX10.1177/0094582X19887910Latin American PerspectivesBoito / Lulism, Populism, and Bonapartism

research-article2019

Boito / LULISM, POPULISM, AND BONAPARTISM 135

(2012) and others have introduced a new element into the discussion by char-

acterizing it as a variant of Bonapartism.

In this article I want to show, first, why it is correct to characterize Lulism as

populism and, more precisely, neopopulism. A warning is important at the

outset. Lulism is not confined to Lula’s political leadership. Populism depends

exclusively on the image of the leader only when it first appears and in a deeper

sense transcends the image of the leader. Overlooking this fact, many were

surprised by the election and subsequent reelection of Dilma Rousseff, believ-

ing that the charisma to which they mistakenly attributed Lula’s leadership

was personal and not transferable. Secondly, I want to point to the error of

characterizing Lulism as a kind of Bonapartism. Finally, I will try to highlight

the importance of the theoretical and political aspects of this discussion.

The ConCepTs

Much of contemporary Brazilian historiography has abandoned the concept

of populism, including the historians who criticize the Vargas inheritance and

some of those who defend it. However, it has resisted criticism and remains

valid, and, more important, it is essential for understanding current Brazilian

and Latin American politics. Scenes from Lula’s 2017 Caravan for Brazil, when

the former president, persecuted and defamed by the judiciary and the media,

was joyously received by the impoverished and politically disorganized masses

in the Northeastern sertão (hinterland), should serve as a warning to those who

have sought to banish the concept of populism from the historiography of

republican Brazil. Throughout this essay I will make critical references to that

historiography.

The concepts of populism and Bonapartism are both the subject of exten-

sive discussion in the social sciences, and it is often overlooked that both

terms are polysemous. It is important here not to confuse, as linguists would

say, the signifier with the signified. The signifier grama may mean “grass” or

“gram”; the signifier manga may mean “mango” or “sleeve.” The signifiers

“populism” and “Bonapartism” may also mean many things. What matters

is how they are used—the concepts they “embrace.”2 The word “populism”

in the discourse of liberal observers and analysts simply means “dema-

gogy”—unscrupulous leadership that deceives the uninformed masses. In

the works of Weberians it means “charismatic leadership” arising from the

personal and nontransferable attributes of the leader. Finally, in Marxist texts

it means grassroots leadership that aspires to distribute income and, nourish-

ing illusions about the function of the state, is politically disorganized. Only

in this last case is it proper to speak of populist ideology. Those who use con-

cepts of demagogic leaders and charismatic leaders (characterizations that,

besides, may merge) understand populism as politics devoid of any ideology.

In Brazilian intellectual life this type of analysis was conceived by the so-

called Itatiaia Group, a nucleus of Carioca intellectuals of the 1950s from

which the former Instituto Superior de Estudos Brasileiros of Rio de Janeiro

emerged. In 1954 the group’s magazine Cadernos do Nosso Tempo published a

pioneering article that became very influential in the analysis of Brazilian