Latin American Populism in between Democracy and Authoritarianism

Session Submission Type: Full Paper Panel

Session Description

The global upsurge of populism has given renewed salience to the old question of populism’s repercussions for democracy. While many recent observers have highlighted the danger that the rise of populism poses to democracy, this panel breaks new ground by also examining the conditions for the downfall of populism and the resulting chances for the revival of democracy. Can liberal pluralism reemerge from the ashes?

The whole issue of populism’s relation to democracy is especially acute in Latin America’s leftwing (“Bolivarian”) populism as spearheaded by Hugo Chávez, which asserts a majoritarian, participatory notion of democracy while deemphasizing democracy’s liberal-pluralist, procedural aspects. Therefore, it is important to assess how much room this populist notion of democracy in fact gives to bottom-up mass participation and how strong the top-down influence of populist leaders is. As populist governments consolidate their power, how serious is the erosion if not suffocation of liberal pluralism?

Moreover, as Bolivarian populism has in recent years fallen on hard times, a new question has emerged, namely how and to what extent liberal pluralism reemerges after the end of left-populist governance, as happened in Ecuador (2017) and Bolivia (2019). In Bolivia, why did a massive populist movement not consolidate its political hegemony and perpetuate itself in power? What are the prospects for democracy that the current regime transition opens up – in a country that has historically suffered from chronic political instability? And in Ecuador, can the determined move to leave behind populism and return to liberal pluralism succeed, given the polity’s low level of institutionalization? Or does the urge to push through change paradoxically entail a further weakening of institutional procedures and thus hinder the consolidation of liberal democracy?

These recent experiences also raise a broader question, namely whether the inherent fragility of populist governance unintentionally limits the damage that populism does to democracy. Does the personalistic, un-institutionalized nature of populist leadership give populist hegemony limited duration, make the descent into authoritarianism temporary, and allow for a quick and decisive reemergence of democracy?

By addressing these important questions in turn, the four papers on this panel offer a wide-ranging assessment of populism’s regime impact and draw theoretical inferences from crucial recent developments. In particular, we move beyond extant scholarship by examining political “life after populism,” namely whether and how liberal pluralism can be revived and sustained after having been damaged or suffocated by mass-based charismatic leadership.

Sub Unit

• Division 12: Comparative Politics of Developing Countries

Cosponsor

• Division 44: Democracy and Autocracy

Individual Presentations

• Populism, the Left, and Democracy: Formative Experiences and Trajectories - Kenneth M. Roberts, Cornell University

• Military Coups, Chronic Instability, and Populism in Bolivia - Fabrice Lehoucq, University of North Carolina, Greensboro

• The Paradoxes of Post-Populist Institutionalization in Ecuador - Felipe Burbano; Carlos de la Torre, University of Florida

• Populism’s Damage to Democracy: How Serious? - Kurt Weyland, University of Texas, Austin

Chair

• Wendy Hunter University of Texas, Austin

Discussants

• Karen L. Remmer Duke University

• Robert R. Kaufman Rutgers University, New Brunswick