8.2 Classical and Neopopulism in Latin America

Populism in Latin America has evolved from classical to neo forms. Classical populism focused on state-led growth and working-class support, while neopopulism blends populist rhetoric with market reforms, targeting a broader base.

Both types of populism arise from inequality, corruption, and economic crises. They impact democratic institutions and economic policies, often concentrating power in the executive and pursuing redistributive measures with mixed long-term results.

Classical vs Neopopulism in Latin America

Emergence and Characteristics

Top images from around the web for Emergence and Characteristics

• 

  Networks, Movements and Technopolitics in Latin America - LAOMS View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Caudillo - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:Latin America regions.svg - Wikimedia Commons View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Networks, Movements and Technopolitics in Latin America - LAOMS View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Caudillo - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

Top images from around the web for Emergence and Characteristics

• 

  Networks, Movements and Technopolitics in Latin America - LAOMS View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Caudillo - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  File:Latin America regions.svg - Wikimedia Commons View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Networks, Movements and Technopolitics in Latin America - LAOMS View original

  Is this image relevant?

• 

  Caudillo - Wikipedia View original

  Is this image relevant?

1 of 3

• Classical populism emerged in the 1930s-1960s characterized by state-led industrialization, redistributive policies, and charismatic leaders appealing to the working class and marginalized groups
• Neopopulism arose in the 1990s combining populist rhetoric with neoliberal economic policies, emphasizing anti-establishment sentiment, and targeting a broader range of constituents
• Classical populists often pursued import-substitution industrialization (ISI) policies while neopopulists generally adhered to market-oriented reforms and privatization

Relationship with Key Stakeholders

• Classical populist leaders, such as Juan Perón (Argentina) and Getúlio Vargas (Brazil), built strong ties with labor unions whereas neopopulists, like Alberto Fujimori (Peru) and Carlos Menem (Argentina), had a more ambivalent relationship with organized labor
• While classical populism often involved nationalization of industries, neopopulism tended to favor foreign investment and market deregulation
• Classical populists often relied on corporatist structures and state-controlled labor unions to maintain power limiting political pluralism
• Neopopulists have been more willing to engage with international financial institutions and foreign investors, albeit with a critical stance

Factors Contributing to Populism

Socioeconomic Factors

• Economic inequality and the concentration of wealth among elite groups create a sense of frustration and resentment among marginalized populations fueling populist sentiments
• High levels of poverty and lack of access to basic services can lead to disillusionment with traditional political parties and institutions making populist alternatives more appealing
• Social and cultural factors, including racial and ethnic tensions, rural-urban divides, and the marginalization of indigenous communities, can be exploited by populist leaders to mobilize support

Political Factors

• Political corruption and the perception of a disconnected, self-serving political elite contribute to anti-establishment attitudes and the rise of populist leaders who promise to challenge the status quo
• Economic crises, such as hyperinflation, debt crises, or severe recessions, can erode trust in incumbent governments and create opportunities for populist leaders to gain support
• Populist leaders often employ nationalist and anti-imperialist rhetoric framing their movements as a struggle against foreign domination and the domestic oligarchy
• Neopopulists have adapted their rhetoric to emphasize opposition to neoliberalism, globalization, and the political establishment while still embracing some market-oriented policies

Impact of Populist Leaders on Institutions

Democratic Institutions

• Populist leaders often concentrate power in the executive branch weakening checks and balances and undermining the autonomy of legislative and judicial institutions
• Neopopulists, like Hugo Chávez (Venezuela) and Evo Morales (Bolivia), have been accused of eroding democratic norms through constitutional reforms, media censorship, and the suppression of opposition parties
• Both classical and neopopulist leaders have relied on charismatic personalities and direct communication with the masses often bypassing traditional media outlets

Economic Policies

• Economic policies under classical populists often involved expansionary fiscal policies, price controls, and subsidies leading to short-term growth but long-term economic instability and high inflation
• Neopopulists have pursued a mix of redistributive social policies and market-oriented reforms with varying degrees of success in reducing poverty and inequality
• Both classical and neopopulist leaders have faced challenges in sustaining economic growth and stability often leading to economic crises, capital flight, and international isolation

Strategies of Classical vs Neopopulist Leaders

Political Strategies

• Classical populists tended to build more institutionalized movements with strong ties to labor unions and political parties while neopopulists have often relied on more personalistic and plebiscitary forms of leadership
• Both classical and neopopulist leaders have used redistributive policies, such as social welfare programs and subsidies, to build popular support although the scope and sustainability of these policies have varied
• Neopopulists have been more willing to engage with international financial institutions and foreign investors while classical populists often pursued policies of state-led development and nationalization

Rhetorical Strategies

• Classical populists often employed nationalist and anti-imperialist rhetoric framing their movements as a struggle against foreign domination and the domestic oligarchy
• Neopopulists have adapted their rhetoric to emphasize opposition to neoliberalism, globalization, and the political establishment while still embracing some market-oriented policies
• Both classical and neopopulist leaders have relied on charismatic personalities and direct communication with the masses often bypassing traditional media outlets to mobilize support and maintain popularity