Search results

Examines populism as a political style involving rapport with "the people", focusing on the Mexican experience and the phenomenon of neo-populism embodied by President Salinas of Mexico, President Menem of Argentina, and President Fujimori of Peru, among others.

'In all matters of importance, style and not content
is the
important thing': Oscar Wilde, The Importance of Being Earnest.Populism is a concept which, despite repeated critiques, refuses to

disappear from Latin American studies. This article reviews some of the

literature, suggesting that populism is best defined in terms of a
particular
political style, characteristically involving a proclaimed
rapport with 'the people',
a 'them-and-us' mentality, and (often, though not necessarily)
a period of crisis
and mobilisation; none of which makes it exceptional, abnormal, 'unmediated'

or irrational. Mexican – among other – examples are invoked.
The article
questions some received opinions: that populism is typically urban, relates
to
particular historical stages of development, or distinctively derives from
either
multi-class alliances or elite manipulation. It also queries the fashionable
notion
of 'economic populism'. Finally, the article notes the recent
phenomenon of
'neo-populism', embodied by Salinas, Menem, Fujimori, etc.,
which a suitably
loose ('stylistic') definition can usefully accommodate,
thus suggesting the
continued, if limited, utility of the concept.

Examines the relationship between the principles of democracy & populism to argue that populism is contradictory to democracy. The development of populism is traced, highlighting significant political differences between Europe & the US & drawing on Plato, Alexander de Tocqueville, & Michael Kazin (1995). While US populism refers to both political participation & a political language, "good" populism disappeared in Europe with the appearance of constitutional democracies. Contemporary European populism emerged with the decline of the Left & the prominent role of intellectuals. It is contended that the nature & practice of populism stem from a vision of democracy hostile to political liberty in that it stalls the political dialectics among citizens & groups, prevents the mediation of political institutions, & replaces equality with unity, in opposition to social/political pluralism & without consideration of the nondomination inherent in democracy. While democracy encourages a broader range of political resources, populism faces the danger of becoming minoritarian or despotic. J. Lindroth

Von einem Populismus zum andern
Das Zeitgeschehen scheint von bedeutenden Zeichen beherrscht, die sich auf den Populismus berufen oder die von Beobachtern des sozialen Lebens als solcher bezeichnet werden. Also wieder Populismus ! Worum geht es eigentlich ? Indem man bis zu den historischen Ursprüngen zurtickging, hat man versucht, das Wesen dieser typisch russischen Bewegung aufzuzeigen. Für die revolutionären Intellektuellen, die von Alexander Herzen aufgerufen wurden, unter das Volk zu gehen, war der Populismus - erste sozialistische Bewegung im Tsarenrußland - in der Tat eine Art soziale Evangelisation in der politischen Ordnung. Der Mißerfolg dieser gigantischen sozialen Bewegung hat zum Radikalismus einiger Narodniki geführt, die bald darauf Terroristen wurden. Seitdem haftet dieses tragische Bild an dem Populismus. Selbst der Begriff 'Populismus' ist verdorben. Heutzutage erscheint er wie eine Form von außergewöhnlicher Demagogie, die durch die Medien schändlich verbreitet wird.