Populism in South America: Democratic Panacea or Pitfall?

• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1111/ajes.12276
• Date: 01 May 2019
• Author: Robert Nyenhuis
• Published date: 01 May 2019

Populism in South America: Democratic

Panacea or Pitfall?

By RobeRt NyeNhuis*

AbstRAct. Populism has become a buzz word in recent years, used

widely by journalists, political pundits, and academics. Much of the

discussion presents the global phenomenon as a recent one. However,

one version or another has existed in South America for nearly a

century. In this article, I put forth a political strategic definition of

populism that includes an actor’s political style, relationship with

followers, political organization, and political history. Using this

conceptualization, I score several presidential candidates’ campaign

behavior during recent elections, between the years 2011 and 2015. I

also consider the democratic consequences of two of the continents’

most visible and longest-serving populists, Evo Morales in Bolivia and

Rafael Correa in Ecuador. I examine the change over time in both

countrie’s political systems regarding the respect for civil liberties and

political rights, changes in citizens’ attitudes towards the democratic

quality of their respective countries, and the variation in socioeconomic

inequality. I conclude with an assessment of each populist’s democratic

consequence and discuss potential for future research.

Introduct ion

Several decades ago, political scientist Paul Drake (1982: 21) wrote

with regard to Latin America:

Perhaps a wave of studies of populism is upon us because histori ans like

to analyze things that ar e dead. Although a funeral orat ion for populism

may be premature, such movements clearly faded in the 1970s.

Populism, however, has not only survived but also proliferated in

the region and in the broader global context. Since 1985, charismatic

American Jour nal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 78, No. 3 (May, 2 019).

DOI: 10 .1111/ajes.122 76

© 2019 American Journa l of Economics and Sociology, Inc.

*Assistant professor, Department of Political Science, Cal Poly Pomona, California.

Email: renyenhuis@cpp.edu

718 The American Journal of Economics and Sociology

leaders who eschew traditional political institutions, deliver passionate

speeches against elites, and command support from the masses have

dotted the political landscape in Peru, Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela,

Bolivia, Ecuador, and Nicaragua.

While populist presidents have a long history of electoral success,

they have often divided society. They routinely antagonize their polit-

ical and economic enemies, and some have had deleterious economic

effects on their countries (Conniff 1999: 2; Dornbusch and Edwards

1991). Castañeda (2006) and Rodríguez (2008) have even argued that

populist presidents are a direct threat to liberal democracy. The per-

severance of populism demonstrates the phenomenon’s resilience

and its importance to understanding political developments in Latin

America. In some countries populists have had mixed success, while

in many countries populist candidates have been absent from the

political arena.

Like other concepts in political science, the definition of populism

is widely contested (Collier 2001; Hawkins 2009, 2010; Ionescu and

Gellner 1969; Mudde and Kaltwasser 2017). Scholars frequently up-

date their core definitional characteristics, contributing to a lack of

consensus on who constitutes a populist leader. Researchers have at-

tempted to define populism or classify actors as populist for more than

half a century and the only constant has been disagreement. The lack

of commonly accepted definitions and categorization undermines the

ability of researchers to consistently compare cases, to share insights

and knowledge, and to further the general knowledge on populism

(Mudde 2007: 12). Not surprisingly, the lack of conceptual agreement

contributes to extensive scholarly debate and disagreement about the

causes and conditions that facilitate the emergence of populist po-

litical actors. Beyond conceptual disagreement, past scholarship on

populism has significant shortcomings. Many authors have defined

populism and its component parts, unsystematically selected cases,

and then examined only those cases with positive outcomes (Weyland

1999: 380). This pattern has been evident in most comparative edited

volumes (Conniff 1999; Conniff et al. 2012; Drake et al. 1982; Mudde

and Kaltwasser 2012). It has also characterized recent cross-national

studies (Carreras 2012; Doyle 2011; Madrid 2008, 2012).