The very concept of populism is referred to be a contested one in the relevant discourse of social sciences. Some social scientists view it as a multifarious occurrence that is historically specific; however, others see this concept as being a sociological phenomenon that basically an economic policy and involves political strategizing. As such present interpretation of populism and neo populism in Latin America is highly dependent on how history unfolded these concepts.
Thus we see that in Latin America political movements were traditionally seen as of populist approach; these movements were led by a leader who led masses of the lower class in a personalistic manner. However, these movements were multi-class because people from almost all classes joined hands together to push the pressures of such movement ahead. The major time span of such movement is from the 1940s to the 1960s and prominent leaders are Argentina’s Juan Peron, Brazil’s Getulio Vargas, and Peru’s Victor Raul Haya de la Torre. This is where history reveals the emergence of the concept of neo-populism.
It was in this scenario that in the 1960s and the 1970s military might try to eradicate or push to the wall these expansionary movements that focused to substitute imports for industrialization. In the 1980s, however, populism made a comeback and hence was called neo-populism which in major outlook stuck to its traditional predecessor: populism. However, this concept did change in certain ways. For instance, the leaders of this face did not merely stick to the idea of expansionism; indeed, they were now ready to bring toughening economic reforms such as privatization, fiscal austerity, liberalization of trade, and so forth.
Organized labor was not their pick also; what they did was to draw their support from the poorest of society’s members that had to make their living in an informal way. A few of the big names in this category can be put as Argentina’s Carlos Menem, Brazil’s Fernando Collor, and Peru’s Alberto Fujimori. This is the point where relevant literature gives evidence of a bulk of argument that views both these phases of populism from a different perspective: that what this entire concept should signify.
More and more social scientists have come to recognize the political nature of the concept of populism. In doing this, they view particular economic policies, historical connections, sociological foundations to be incidental instead of claiming them to be inherent. Therefore, without populism’s specific definition, it is agreed that it is a political phenomenon.
First, the leaders are charismatic who define politics from their own perspective and require their followers to show high devotion to them; secondly, a multi-class of the political coalition is gathered highly dependent on lower-class workers. Their reason for this is that this political movement or phenomenon “entails a political strategy of mobilization that favors direct, unmediated ties to followers over highly organized political parties”. Being a discourse as Manichaean in essence, populist concept customarily employs an anti-elitist discourse of politics (Dugas, 2003).
When neo populism is discussed in the context of Latin America, the name of Columbia cannot miss the critical eye. It is due to the fact that this country, although being very much in the same region, did not have populism in its internal managerial structure: it never had a populist president nor did any populist movement gained a majority in Congress. It is majorly because Colombia’s political system entertains the relative stability of the two-party system of the country.
In this way, a large number of public services have been accessed and the clientelistic networks of this are also very effective in this regard. However, here the mention of the two populist movements that emerged in the 20th century is also made. Some mishaps happened to these two parties that is why they could not flourish to the heights of glory but were very much there. These both are important enough to examine in the context of Colombia because these both carried huge influence on the masses.
Looking at this very situation when Colombia was in close contact with populism, it is generally agreed by critics that populism in Colombia is not something new or far-off because the leaders of populism in Colombia, Rojas, and Gaitan, reveal that populism has almost snatched the presidency from the conventional administrative system of this country. As such it is often pointed out Colombia must be studied as a third world countries’ special example for a complex mix of populism and the conventional one.
Upon critical evaluation of the activities of neo populism, it must be noted that a number of points of reference are made in accordance with the success of this phenomenon. For instance, critics note that in Latin America, populism has been hampered in a number of ways. For instance, it is noted that a large number of populist presidents shouted louder slogans about populism; however, once they won through populism into the office of power, they found it better to abandon the ideology than suffer from it without trying to let their slogans lateralize. Critics also view populism in opposition to neo-liberalism on a number of ground that raises the issue even higher.
It is regarded by these critics opine that it is not possible due to the fact that populism is there only to acquire votes from the masses and not for practicing it like neo-liberalism. The reason is that after the election the populace has less influence over the chosen; however, the leader finds himself/herself in a situation that has international influences of a number of varieties: the influences can range from foreign business matters to international financial institutions.
However, this claim is regarded as half correct due to the reason that neo-liberalism is also compatible with neo-populism because the leaders (Fujimori, Menem, etc.) who quit neo-populist way did not abandon it but actually saw their pick in the well-defined concept of neo-liberalism: thus it is to be noted that neo-liberalism is not in opposition to populism, but is compatible with it (Wayland, 2003).
Thus we can see that today Latin America sees a different view of populism which is essentially the very idea as in the past. Such areas as Africa can also be examined for their suitable offering on the same issue as we have such leaders as Mbeki there (Olivier, 2003).
Moreover, the long-standing political upheaval of North Korea can also teach us so much about these very phenomena (Jeon, 2000). The situation is almost similar elsewhere, say, Yugoslavia. In opposition to the Western leadership style which is pluralistic, this region gave way to the Titoist style which seems to lead this nation nowhere. Here it can be said that the centralized leadership style is no more the need of the day. It should be something that encircles a number of diverse issues addressing the diverse needs of a country’s people (Journal of Politics, 1981).
References
Olivier, G. (2003). Is Thabo Mbeki Africa’s savior? International Affairs (79) 4. 815-828.
Jeon, J. G. (2000). North Korean leadership: Kim Jong I1’s balancing act in the ruling circle. Third World Quarterly, (21) 5, 761-779.
Journal of Politics (1981). The liberalization of dictatorship: the Titoist lesson to the third world. The Journal of Politics, (43).
Dugas, J. C. (2003). The emergence of Neopopulism in Colombia? The case of Alvaro Uribe. Third World Quarterly, (24) 6, 1117-1136.
Wayland, K. (2003). Latin American neopopulism. Neopopulism and neoliberalism in Latin America: how much affinity?