Populist possibilities and political constraints in Mexico

This article defines populism (in Latin American context) as a form of politics that is based mainly upon a personalist appeal, attracts significant popular support and, if successful, significantly redesigns social or political institutions. Neopopulism is defined as a form of populism which begins outside the state as opposed to classic populism which originates within the state. The main theoretical argument is that the study of populism can be made significant for comparative politics if we emphasise the issue of institutional redesign and then conceptualise it in structure vs agency terms. The comparative question then becomes whether a particular set of political institutions is robust enough to withstand the challenge of a charismatic individual. The empirical background is that Latin America has seen a significant number of populist movements that have indeed fundamentally altered institutional structures. By the same token, there have been an even larger number of populist attempts which ultimately failed. Having made this point, the discussion then focuses on Mexico. It seeks to understand the different sets of conditions which allowed Lázaro Cárdenas to succeed as classic populist in the 1930s, Cuauhtémoc Cárdenas to come close to success as a neopopulist in the 1980s and which greatly reduce the likelihood of successful neopopulism in the near future.     

Carlos Saúl Menem: variations on the theme of populism

The labels neopopulist and/or neoliberal have been attached to Latin American political leaders in an effort to understand the post‐transition to democracy experiences. This article examines the appropriateness of such labels in the Argentine context in the 1990s. It is argued that describing Carlos Menem as either neopopulist or neoliberal obscures rather than illuminates the vicissitudes along the path to establishing the institutions of liberal democracy, a commitment the Argentine electorate made in 1983. An old‐style populist at heart, Menem's pragmatic embrace of the neoliberal zeitgeist can only be understood in the context of the social, political and economic upheavals of the 1980s in Argentina.     

Neopopulism and its limits in Collor's Brazil

The election of Fernando Collor de Mello as President of Brazil in 1989 was regarded as part of a new wave of neopopulist leaders in contemporary Latin America. The article explores the conditions of emergence of Collor's neopopulist project, the nature of his appeal and the causes of his downfall. The article argues that the emergence of Collor's neopopulist challenge was the result of a crisis of representation in Brazil's edging democratic order. The article concludes that Collor's demise from power in 1992 had to do with the precarious nature of his appeal and his failure to ground his project in a new set of political institutions.     

The rise and fall and rise of populism in Venezuela

The article seeks to outline the main elements through which a populist political order was built in Venezuela. It will be done, first by looking at the golden years a of Venezuelan populism (1945–1948). It will be argued that the constitution of populist politics meant: an appeal to the people, the articulation of new social relations and constitution of new political identities. Then it will turn to the latter Pérez and Caldera showing the basic schemes of their governments. They sought to reconstitute politics and reshape political identities in a new populist way. The arrival of Chávez at power and the first months of his government are also analysed.     

The resurgence of populism in Latin America

Contemporary manifestations of “neopopulism” are situated in an analysis of the role of political institutions in capitalist societies, and the idea of structural and institutional crisis. It is argued that “populist” and “neopopulist” discourse alike must be understood in terms of their relationship to specific conjunctural projects for the reorientation of capitalist reproduction. This approach directs attention back to the contrasting conjunctures in which classical populist and contemporary neopopulist political projects were launched. It also provides a basis on which contemporary projects which adopt elements of populist strategy and discourse can be compared and evaluated.