The paper develops two concepts, populism and neo-populism, to examine the government and the figure of president Alvaro Uribe Velez.The text presents the management of the media, economic policy, dealing with the Supreme Court, the relationship with the NGOs and, finally, elements of illegality and illegitimacy in their government. ; El articulo desarrolla dos conceptos, populismo y neopopulismo, para examinar el gobierno y la figura del expresidente Álvaro Uribe Vélez.El texto presenta el manejo de los medios de comunicación, la política económica, el trato con la Corte Suprema de Justicia, la relación con las Ongs y, por último, elementos de ilegalidad e ilegitimidad en su gobierno.
La idea de populismo se caracteriza por una polisemia radical que en no pocas ocasiones debilita su capacidad explicativa. La presente voz tiene el objetivo de exponer un doble movimiento para ganar en su comprensión: por un lado, reconstruir la historia, semántica y tipología del concepto, por otro, exponer las líneas generales de la teoría política del filósofo del populismo Ernesto Laclau. Finalmente, sugerimos que el sentido de los populismos está asociado al «nuevo espíritu del capitalismo postmoderno» como una de las formas de expresión del malestar social contemporáneo y que su encarnación política puede dirigirse tanto en una dirección emancipatoria como de «revolución pasiva». ; The idea of populism is characterized by a radical polysemy that on many occasions weakens its explanatory capacity. The present entry has the aim of exposing a double movement to gain understanding: on the one hand, to reconstruct the history, semantics and typology of the concept, on the other, to expose the general lines of the political theory of the philosopher of populism Ernesto Laclau. Finally, we suggest that the meaning of populisms is associated with the «new spirit of postmodern capitalism» as one of the forms of expression of contemporary social unrest and that its political incarnation can be directed in both an emancipatory direction and a «passive revolution».
This paper analyzes Alexis de Tocqueville's perspective on populism in two different places and moments in time: his trip to America at the beginning of the 1830s—which coincided with Andrew Jackson's presidency—and the revolution of 1848 in France —which Tocqueville recounts in his Souvenirs. Discussing the relation between Tocqueville and populism may seem like an anachronism. However, the main components of populism—such as the direct appeal to the people, the charismatic leader, the ideological polarization that divides the world in friends and enemies, among others—were well-known to Tocqueville and his contemporaries. In general terms, contemporary populist politics would have been called demagogic during the nineteenth century. How did Tocqueville face demagogic politics during his time? It is easy to say that he was critical of demagogues. However, we can ask about the reasons for this criticism, as well as about Tocqueville's understanding of what we would today call populist leadership and its consequences.
The paper develops two concepts, populism and neo-populism, to examine the government and the figure of president Alvaro Uribe Velez.The text presents the management of the media, economic policy, dealing with the Supreme Court, the relationship with the NGOs and, finally, elements of illegality and illegitimacy in their government. ; El articulo desarrolla dos conceptos, populismo y neopopulismo, para examinar el gobierno y la figura del expresidente Álvaro Uribe Vélez.El texto presenta el manejo de los medios de comunicación, la política económica, el trato con la Corte Suprema de Justicia, la relación con las Ongs y, por último, elementos de ilegalidad e ilegitimidad en su gobierno.
"Venezuela: 4th & 5th republics" (Neira Fernández, Enrique) ; Presentation ; I. Conceptual frame ; Challenges and modernization ; Reforms of the state ; Governance ; Genuineness ; Decentralization ; Democracy ; Leadership ; Militarism ; Democratic caesarism ; Populism ; Violence ; Revolution ; Socialism ; II. The fourth republic (Before Chávez) ; A look back ; The economic thing ; The social thing ; The political thing ; The ethical thing ; III. The fith republic (In the times of Chávez) ; Introduction ; The strong man ; The process. Political ideology ; The process. Characteristics ; The beautiful revolution ; Gusty future ; Conclusion. The quadrature of the circle ; neira@intercable.net.ve ; Nivel analítico
The translation of the title is misleading. The original title is Progressive Populism. A riflesionesulla crisi della democrazia Europea, that is, progressive populism. A reflection on the crisis of European democracy. The "crisis of European democracy" is only indirectly part of the volume, which presents an interpretation of GinoGermani's sociology of Peronism. The "crisis of European democracy" appears as the background of Germani's intellectual formation; In reality, it was part of the existential-political challenge faced by a whole generation of intellectuals: Polanyi, Arendt, Mannheim, Neuman, Heller, Laskiante, the best known. The First National Congress of Philosophy, held in San Juan in 1949, is illustrative of the impact of this crisis on the most graced of the intelligentsia of our country. ; La traducción del título se presta a equívocos. Eltítulo original es Populismo progressivo. Una riflessionesulla crisi della democrazia europea, o sea El populismoprogresivo. Una reflexión sobre la crisis de la democraciaeuropea. La "crisis de la democracia europea" sóloindirectamente forma parte del volumen, que presentauna interpretación de la sociología de GinoGermani sobre el peronismo. La "crisis de la democraciaeuropea" aparece como telón de fondo dela formación intelectual de Germani; en realidad,fue parte del desafío político-existencial a la quese enfrentó toda una generación de intelectuales:Polanyi, Arendt, Mannheim, Neuman, Heller, Laskientre los más conocidos. El Primer CongresoNacional de Filosofía reunido en San Juan en 1949es ilustrativo del impacto de esa crisis en lo másgranado de la intelectualidad de nuestro país. Buenos Aires. Prometeo libros. Primera edición 2019. 168 págs. Traducción de AlejandroGutiérrez. Prólogo de Mario Greco. ISBN 978-987-8331-21-8
Populism a Very Short Introduction, es el resultado de varios años de colaboración entre Cas Mudde y Cristóbal Rovira. Su objetivo ha sido elaborar una definición mínima de populismo que pueda usarse en estudios empíricos. Entienden al populismo, como una ideología de núcleo poroso que considera que la sociedad está dividida en dos grupos homogéneos y antagónicos: el pueblo puro frente a la élite corrupta y, sostiene que la política debería ser una expresión de la voluntad general del pueblo.
It is fashionable to affirm that populism is advancing in the world. Examples of governments assuming positions that can be qualified in this way are abundant. But it seems pertinent to really dimension the existence and magnitude of this phenomenon and not only attend to a casuistic vision, largely focused on the Western world. That is why this paper will seek to measure the growth during the 21st century in terms of votes and seats in the lower national assemblies and the participation in the governments of the world of parties, differentiated according to their populist orientation. Today there are reliable sources of information to do this type of exercise. In particular, we will use the data compiled by the Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) project to compare the electoral presence and success and the ability to lead or be part of the government coalitions of the parties according to their adherence to populist logics. To do this, after an introduction related to the same concept of populism, the source of information to be used in this text and the indices that will be used for analysis will be characterized. Subsequently, the results of the measurement of the behavior of these indices in the world in the period 2000-2019 and their relationship with the achievements of the parties in terms of votes, seats and participation in government coalitions will be presented in a synthetic way. Finally, the meaning of the data compiled, displayed and analyzed will be discussed. The analyzed data allow us to advance in the finding of a relationship between populist discourse and the adoption of a position contrary to elitism and that the position to the right in the political-ideological spectrum tends to make an organization less likely to adopt a populist rhetoric. However, there would be a long way to go to achieve a full explanation of the phenomenon of populism in this century and it is not insignificant progress in achieving electoral support and integration into governments that has been detected during the last decade. This forces us to think of new paths and alternative sources for understanding the phenomenon that occupies the center of attention in this essay.
Populism is raising. This phenomenon is due to several reasons, both economic and cultural in nature. Among the economic reasons is the technological change that has displaced the workforce by automation; Among the causes of cultural order is the emigration that has affected the host societies and that has made them react through racism and xenophobia.What is highlighted in this essay is that "the cultural wars" waged in the sixties from which postmodernism arose that was identified with the currents of the left, is now being used by the right and ultra-right to justify issues such as post-truth and alternative facts. The relevant point is to defend democracy by using the truth. ; El populismo está en ascenso. Este fenómeno se debe a varios motivos tanto de carácter económico como de naturaleza cultural. Entre los motivos económicos se encuentra el cambio tecnológico que ha desplazado a la mano de obra por la automatización; entre las causas de orden cultural se encuentra la emigración que ha afectado a las sociedades receptoras y que las ha hecho reaccionar mediante el racismo y la xenofobia.Lo que se resalta en este ensayo es que "las guerras culturales" libradas en los años sesenta, de las cuales surgió el posmodernismo, que se identificó con las corrientes de izquierda, ahora está siendo usado por la derecha y ultra-derecha para justificar temas como la pos-verdad y los hechos alternativos. El punto relevante es defender la democracia esgrimiendo la verdad.
This article reflects on the degree of populism present in the single party of Franco's dictatorship, the Spanish Traditionalist Falange and the JONS. It begins with a definition of populism based on classic and recent contributions and then assesses the weight of populism in historical fascism. The specificity of Spanish fascism, however, is that it survived in a democratic environment after 1945. The paper reviews the evolution of Falange, whose members and leaders, in spite of the political power and symbolic presence that the party enjoyed, were aware of the limits that they encountered in the imposition of a project of their own due to the weight of the most conservative and Catholic sectors within the regime. As a result of this contradiction, they produced a discourse articulated around the idea of a «pending revolution» which allowed them to identify themselves fully with Franco and his work, while at the same time developing a critique of some aspects of the regime. They claimed to embody the values of the «people» against sectors such as the Opus Dei, which they regarded as distorting the values of the «national revolution» of July 18 due to spurious interests. This discourse was taken up by the young people who were socialized in the fiery rhetoric of revolutionary Falangism in the fifties and sixties. However, as Francoism was progressively delegitimized, Falangism either became a bunker closed to change, or else was transformed by the blue reformist sectors, which would end up supporting the adoption of democratizing and reconciliation measures that the death of the dictator definitely prompted. ; El articulo intenta reflexionar sobre el grado de populismo presente en el partido único de la dictadura franquista, Falange Española Tradicionalista y de las JONS. Para ello, se parte de una definición sobre populismo a partir de aportes clásicos y recientes para luego ver el peso del populismo en el fascismo histórico. Pero la especificidad del fascismo español es sobrevivir en un entorno democrático tras 1945. En el trabajo se hace una revisión de la evolución de una Falange que tiene poder político y presencia simbólica, aunque sus miembros y dirigentes perciben limitaciones para la imposición de un proyecto propio, dado el peso de los sectores más conservadores y católicos dentro del régimen. Esta contradicción produce un discurso de «revolución pendiente» que hace compatible la identificación total con Franco y su obra y a la par, desarrolla un discurso crítico con algunos aspectos del régimen, mientras Falange decía encarnar los valores del «pueblo» frente a sectores como el Opus Dei que estarían deformando los valores de la «revolución nacional» del 18 de julio por intereses espurios. Este discurso caló en los jóvenes socializados en la retórica ardiente del falangismo revolucionario en los años cincuenta y sesenta, pero la deslegitimación progresiva del franquismo acabó reduciendo al falangismo o bien a un búnker cerrado al cambio o a los sectores reformistas azules que se acabarían sumando a la necesidad de la adopción de medidas democratizadoras y de reconciliación, definitivamente impulsadas con la muerte del dictador.
This paper analyzes Alexis de Tocqueville's perspective on populism in two different places and moments in time: his trip to America at the beginning of the 1830s—which coincided with Andrew Jackson's presidency—and the revolution of 1848 in France —which Tocqueville recounts in his Souvenirs. Discussing the relation between Tocqueville and populism may seem like an anachronism. However, the main components of populism—such as the direct appeal to the people, the charismatic leader, the ideological polarization that divides the world in friends and enemies, among others—were well-known to Tocqueville and his contemporaries. In general terms, contemporary populist politics would have been called demagogic during the nineteenth century. How did Tocqueville face demagogic politics during his time? It is easy to say that he was critical of demagogues. However, we can ask about the reasons for this criticism, as well as about Tocqueville's understanding of what we would today call populist leadership and its consequences. ; Este trabajo analiza la perspectiva de Alexis de Tocqueville sobre el populismo en dos momentos y lugares específicos: su viaje a América a principios de la década de 1830 y la revolución de 1848 en Francia. Aunque puede parecer anacrónico discutir la relación entre Alexis de Tocqueville y el populismo, los componentes centrales del populismo le eran conocidos a Tocqueville y a sus contemporáneos; probablemente los hubieran comprendido como una peculiar forma de demagogia. ¿Cómo se enfrentó Tocqueville al fenómeno de la política demagógica en su tiempo? Podemos adivinar con cierta facilidad que su posición frente a los demagogos fue crítica. Sin embargo, ¿cuáles fueron las razones de esa oposición? ¿Cuál era el entendimiento que Tocqueville tenía del liderazgo, los fundamentos y las consecuencias de lo que hoy llamaríamos populismo? Tocqueville and populism Abstract This paper analyzes Alexis de Tocqueville's perspective on populism in two different places and moments in time: his trip to America at the beginning of the 1830s—which coincided with Andrew Jackson's presidency—and the revolution of 1848 in France —which Tocqueville recounts in his Souvenirs. Discussing the relation between Tocqueville and populism may seem like an anachronism. However, the main components of populism—such as the direct appeal to the people, the charismatic leader, the ideological polarization that divides the world in friends and enemies, among others—were well-known to Tocqueville and his contemporaries. In general terms, contemporary populist politics would have been called demagogic during the nineteenth century. How did Tocqueville face demagogic politics during his time? It is easy to say that he was critical of demagogues. However, we can ask about the reasons for this criticism, as well as about Tocqueville's understanding of what we would today call populist leadership and its consequences. Keywords: Alexis de Tocqueville, populism, Democracy in America, revolutions of 1848.
The article analyzes the complex and problematic relationship between populist insurgency and the return of the class struggle. The 'populist moment' is interpreted as a counter-movement with respect to the disruptive social results of the thirty-year period of neo-liberal globalization and as an obligatory passage, in the current historical conjuncture, to reactivate the possibility of a distributive conflict in a practicable political space, that of the National State. After the initial onset, however, populism is structurally inadequate, due to its very logic of functioning, to give form to a class struggle anchored in the pluralism of social interests and to resist the risk of reactionary drifts and colonization from above by the dominant economic forces. ; Este artículo analiza la compleja y problemática relación entre insurgencia populista y el retorno de la lucha de clases. El "momento populista" es interpretado como un contra movimiento con relación a los resultados sociales disruptivos del periodo de treinta años de globalización neoliberal y como un pasaje obligatorio, en la actual coyuntura histórica, para re activar la posibilidad de un conflicto redistributivo en una esfera política práctica, la del Estado nación. Sin embargo, despúes del momento inicial, el populismo se muestra estructuralmente inadecuado para dar forma a una lucha de clases anclada en el pluralismo de los intereses sociales y para resistir el riesgo de cambios reaccionarias y de colonización desde arriba, por parte de las fuerzas económicas dominantes, debido a su propia lógica de funcionamiento.
El presente artículo plantea que el uso de la noción de hegemonía en la argumentación sobre el populismo y su capacidad democratizante en la obra de Ernesto Laclau implica un rezago antidemocrático que resta potencial emancipador y de ampliación de la participación política. La argumentación de Laclau incluye como horizonte ineludible de la articulación de un movimiento populista la formación de una hegemonía que sea capaz de disputar el poder político y que configure una 'cadena de equivalencias' entre 'demandas sociales insatisfechas'. En consecuencia, el presente artículo revisa dos frentes de crítica a la argumentación de Laclau sobre la hegemonía en el populismo: uno que proviene de la academia estadounidense y es liderado por Alberto Moreiras y Jon Beasly Murray y otro que viene de la sociología argentina con la interactuó Laclau: Aboy Carlés y Emilio de Ipola. El sentido de revisar estás críticas es repensar el populismo sin hegemonía para hallar un camino que supere las dificultades que desde distintos frentes se endilgan a la obra de Laclau. La hipótesis que se presenta como alternativa es que una vez desprendido de la noción de hegemonía, el populismo se puede recategorizar en torno a su capacidad de solución a demandas insatisfechas y ampliación de participación política institucional en lo que llamaré 'populismo transformativo'. ; This article proposes that the use of the notion of hegemony in the argument about populism and its democratizing capacity in Ernesto Laclau's work implies an undemocratic lag that subtracts the potential for emancipation and expansion of political participation. Laclau's argumentation includes as an inescapable horizon of the articulation of a populist movement the formation of a hegemony that is capable of contesting political power and that configures a chain of equivalences between unsatisfied social demands. Consequently, this article reviews two fronts of criticism of Laclau s argument about hegemony in populism: one that comes from the American academy and is led by Alberto Moreiras and another that comes from Argentine sociology with which Laclau interacted: Gerardo Aboy Carlés and Emilio de Ípola. The sense of reviewing these criticisms is to rethink populism without hegemony to find a way that overcomes the difficulties that from different fronts are attached to Laclau´s work. In the wake of the authors who have advanced from Laclau populism to republican populism, in different versions of combination, the hypothesis that will be defended from now on is that any transition from populism to a democratic scenario requires detaching from the idea of hegemony and therefore, populism can be re-categorized around its ability to solve unsatisfied demands and broaden institutional political participation, in what I will call transformative populism.
The past two decades have witnessed a resurgence of populist politics across the globe. The early 21st century saw the pink tide of left wing populism in Latin America, the Southern European populisms that rejected the politics of austerity after 2013, and the right wing populisms that now dominate not only European but global polities. Although each instance of populist politics is distinct, all share an appeal to the people, to the true people, who both oppose and are dominated by the political elite. The nature of this elite also varies – in some cases it is predatory capital; in other cases it is the multicultural left; in yet others the anonymous bureaucrats in Brussels undermining national sovereignty. This special issue of RECERCA poses one question: how does populism relate to democracy? Is it democracy's other face?
