The scholarly literature on populism readily acknowledges that the term is tough to define. Unlike other “isms” populism does not adhere to a coherent ideology. Rather, populism is an array of distinct political features—most notably involving a charismatic leader who appeals directly to a popular base. Further, both left and right populisms share the conviction that liberal representative institutions are corrupt and controlled by unresponsive oligarchies. Hence populist leaders of all political stripes have little reluctance in bypassing or fundamentally altering liberal democratic institutions. In the Latin American experience, both left and right populisms gained momentum in contexts of economic and social exclusion when liberal democratic institutions were weak. Although both left and right populisms claim concern for the material welfare of their support bases the key distinction is in their commitment to actually alleviate material deprivation. The right populist regime of Carlos Menem (Argentina), for example, overrode democratic deliberative institutions and pursued neoliberal reform, a policy direction that increased deprivation and lined the pockets of the economic elite. Meanwhile, the left populist regime in Bolivia, under Evo Morales, substantially reduced poverty and incorporated social movements into policy deliberation. However, the Morales regime has displayed distinct illiberal features, controlling the opposition media and politicizing the courts. Ecuador, under Raphael Correa, reduced poverty substantially and gave rhetorical support to consulting civil society. He failed to honor the latter commitment. Constitutional reform heavily centralized power and weakened the Ecuadorian legislature. The most notable case of the harm wrought by left populism to representative institutions is, of course, Venezuela under Chavez and Maduro.
Liberal and Populist Democracy
As C.B. Macpherson pointed out many years ago, liberal democracy is a specific form of democracy: one that values the market, protects private property, and places special value on individual civil liberties. This form of democracy has worked well in the Global North until now because it was good at providing enough redistributive measures so that the vast majority saw the system as a fair one. Populist democracy (of both the left and right varieties), on the other hand, conceives of democracy as the “sway of the whole people” over all other considerations. It espouses Rousseau’s concept of democracy as that of the primacy of the General Will of the People. A democratic left, particularly in a context where the legitimacy of political institution is under siege as it is in so many countries of the Global North, is going to have to navigate this basic conceptual difference if it is to recoup popular support. This is so because popular supporters of the populist right have abandoned the liberal democratic concept of the term. Addressing this fundamental conceptual dilemma will not be easy, particularly in contexts of increased inequality and wealth concentration.
The Social Democratic and Populist Left in Latin America
The Latin American case is illustrative. Left regimes rose to power in the early to mid- 2000s, through free and fair elections. Some of these regimes can be characterized as social democratic (Brazil, Chile, Uruguay), others as left populist (Bolivia, Ecuador). However, in all cases, economic globalization and market liberalization, a process that had involved a significant reduction in the size and role of the state, had increased the power of domestic economic conglomerates. With the withdrawal of the state from the economy, left (both populist and social democratic) policy elites became more dependent than ever upon these economic actors for increased investment, economic growth, and job creation. These powerful economic interests were in a position to veto progressive policies. In all cases, there were sharp tensions in business/state relations, more so, of course, in the populist left cases than in the social democratic ones.
