Populism varies largely in the way it is applied when discussing politics among academicians and correspondents. However, it generally refers to an appeal to the masses. This style of politics can be defined as representing a form of Aristotelian politics of parallel connections between different social groups for the sake of a predicament resolution. In Latin America, this style of politics has been widely used throughout history. The politicians normally become accustomed politically to the popular frame of mind of their homeland. This they achieve by shifting in accordance with the trend in perceptions of the people and they operate in this state all of their political lives. The Latin American states have not shown patent consistency in populism political philosophy. Most have shown a mixture of liberals and conservatives such as in the United States or the examples of democracies found in European countries.
On the other hand, a trend has emerged in Latin American populism in the form of socialist populism which connects with the underprivileged by assuring review in allotment guidelines and national running of energy assets. The method of governance can be traced to the development period of the mid19th century that was coupled with the goods price explosion. This trend has aided the nations to develop the ideas of the masses into their agendas although it has had lots of criticism on its economic policies.
The Latin American leftist system of government is currently facing myriad tests. The heads of state have had to develop a new approach in their economic and political strategies dubbed 21st-century socialism by Hugo Chavez of Venezuela. The populists have tolerated modest disagreement while thumping the free enterprise system, hammering the journalists, reproving the US every time, and separating the people by ferociously hitting on factual and anticipated foes. Most of the economies of the countries have been affected especially in the case of liquidity. During the boom, the heads of state withdrew out lots of money which led to a decrease in the amount of cash available in their coffers. Specific countries have had their challenges. An example is where the downward movement in oil prices forced Chavez to reduce the importation of new motor vehicle parts.
Chavez has tried as much as possible to win the support of his fellow countrymen. He, therefore, feels he should share his upheaval with other parts of the Latin America region. He lures the states using goodies such as funds, expertise, and half-truths. Some states such as Brazil and Argentina hang on to Chavez and his style with a hope of changing him of which they are in doubt. Bolivian President Evo Morales has shown trends of following Chavez’s way of nationalizing state assets. Evo’s plan, however, suffered a holdup in July when tycoons from rich areas voted for sovereignty, and therefore he failed to meet the majority to control the assembly chosen to draft a new constitution (Whalen, 2009).
The current world economic trend is showing signs of fast having a global appeal. Countries are now more secure if they share their economic experiences with other states to ensure that they meet their obligations to their people. In Latin America, it is no different as the countries such as Brazil and Argentina have shown approval signs by the populations. In Bolivia, it was evident that the people ensured that the presidents’ party will not control the constitutional assembly so as to block the nationalization of state assets. It is therefore likely that only a few countries will hang on to the populist kind of politics.
References
Whalen, C. (2009).Rising anti-U.S. populism: the Hugo Chavez act is starting to wear thin, but does the U.S. state departments have an effective game plan to take Of his predicament? Web.