The article explores the effects of populist polarization in creating strong and long-lasting ins... more The article explores the effects of populist polarization in creating strong and long-lasting institutions based on the rule of law. It focuses on politics and not on the political economy of populism or of natural resource extraction. The first section briefly explains how we understand the contested notions of populism and the rule of law. The second focuses on the paradigmatic case of Juan Perón's first two administrations (1946-1956) to explore the ambiguous legacies of populist inclusion for the creation of long-lasting democratic institutions. The third section focuses on how Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa appealed to the unbounded will of the people to convene participatory constituent assemblies. The last section focuses on Ecuador's post-populist succession. Different from Evo Morales that was ousted by a coup, or Nicolás Maduro that killed democracy, Lenín Moreno, who was Correa's former vice-president, abandoned populism, ditched his mentor, and used a referendum to clean the state and political institutions from Cor-rea's allies. Appealing to the people directly, his administration assumed exceptional powers to name new authorities of control and accountability. His institutional reforms however might not last because they were based on the exclusion of Correa and his followers. The conclusion explores the reasons why actors continue to use laws instrumentally making it difficult to create long-lasting institutional arrangements based on the rule of law, and hence on the possibility of deepening democracy.
The twenty-first century could well become known as the populist century. No
longer c... more The twenty-first century could well become known as the populist century. No longer confined to Latin America or to the margins of European politics, populism has spread to Africa, Asia, and, with Donald Trump's election, to the cradle of liberal democracy. Even though it is uncertain what impact Trump's populism will have on American democracy, it is worth learning from Latin America, where populists have been in power from the 1930s and 1940s to the present. Even as Latin American populists like Juan Perón and Hugo Chávez included the poor and the nonwhite in the political community, they moved toward authoritarianism by undermining democracy from within. Are the foundations of American democracy and the institutions of civil society strong enough to resist US president Donald Trump's right-wing populism?
This contribution discusses the advantages and disadvantages of Cas Mudde’s minimalist
definition... more This contribution discusses the advantages and disadvantages of Cas Mudde’s minimalist definition to study populism. It argues that his proposal might facilitate consensus among scholars, yet his conceptualization is an obstacle to grasp the complexity of populism in its diverse manifestations over space and time. Moreover, some underlying normative assumptions limit the reach of his concept to small rightwing populist European parties at the fringes of the political system. The article argues for the necessity to recognize pluralism and hybridism avoiding any reductionism in populism scholarship. Populism cannot be reduced to one of its components, like a moralist ideology. Populism is also a strategy, a political style, and a discursive frame.
Este artículo utiliza la experiencia de América Latina con el populismo como movimientos que reta... more Este artículo utiliza la experiencia de América Latina con el populismo como movimientos que retan el poder y como gobiernos para explicar las peculiaridades del populismo de Trump y sus efectos en la democracia americana. El trabajo está dividido en tres secciones. La primera compara la ola populista de izquierda que dio fin con el neoliberalismo y la partidocracia en Latinoamérica, con la posible ruptura de Trump del con-senso de las élites demócratas y republicanas que ligaron la globalización con políticas de reconocimiento multicultural. La segunda distingue dife-rentes construcciones de la categoría «el pueblo» y analiza cómo estas cons-trucciones pueden llevar a la inclusión o la exclusión. La tercera se enfoca en las estrategias populistas desde el poder. Cuando las instituciones demo-cráticas son frágiles y los populismos emergen como respuestas a crisis de los partidos y las instituciones de la democracia representativa, los ataques sistemáticos a la prensa, a la sociedad civil y a los derechos políticos lleva-ron a la dinámica que Guillermo O´Donnell caracterizó como la muerte lenta de la democracia y su transformación en autoritarismo. Institucio-nes más fuertes, sociedades civiles más complejas y movimientos sociales con capacidad de llevar a cabo acciones colectivas duraderas resistieron los impulso autocráticos populistas. Sin embargo, usando la expresión de Nadia Urbinati se desfiguró la democracia reduciendo la complejidad de la polí-tica a una lucha entre dos campos y transformando a un líder en la encar-nación de los valores populares y de la voluntad del pueblo mismo. La elección de Donald Trump llevó al populismo desde los márgenes hasta el centro de la política estadounidense. Si bien movimientos, partidos y líderes populistas trataron de conquistar el poder desde que se fundó el Populist Party en 1891, ningún populista llegó a la presidencia hasta la elec-ción de Trump. Este artículo utiliza la experiencia de América Latina con el populismo como movimientos que retan el poder y como gobiernos para * Artículo aceptado para su publicación el 25 de enero de 2018.
This article analyzes the ambiguities of Bolivarianism on democracy. Led by Hugo Chávez, Bolivari... more This article analyzes the ambiguities of Bolivarianism on democracy. Led by Hugo Chávez, Bolivarianism was an ideology and a strategy of regime transformation and democratization. Its populist language identified internal and external enemies such as US imperialism and elites that served US interests. This meant that the complexity of national and international politics was simplified in these countries to a struggle between two antagonistic camps: neoliberalism vs. the socialism of the twenty-first century; bourgeois-liberal democracy against real democracy; and US led Pan-Americanism vs.Latin Americanism. Bolivarian leaders made clear that clean elections were the only source of democratic legitimacy, and they were at the forefront of the opposition to the military coup d’état of 2009 in Honduras for example. While promoting elections as the only tool to elect and remove leaders, Bolivarian leaders simultaneously undermined democracy from within by concentrating power in the hands of the president, packing the courts with cronies, and using the legal system to punish critics. The paper unravels how Chávez diffused his model of regime transformation, and how Bolivarian leaders learned from his successes.
This article analyzes the contours of populist citizenship as an alternative to neoliberal models... more This article analyzes the contours of populist citizenship as an alternative to neoliberal models of citizenship as consumption, and to liberal models that protect pluralism. It compares how political, socioeconomic, civil, collective, gender, and GLBT rights were imagined and implemented in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. It explains why despite the expansion of some rights, populists' use of discriminatory legalism to regulate the public sphere and civil society led to the displacement of democracy toward authoritarianism.
Exceto onde especificado diferentemente, a matéria publicada neste periódico é licenciada sob for... more Exceto onde especificado diferentemente, a matéria publicada neste periódico é licenciada sob forma de uma licença Creative Commons-Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. Abstract: Building on the existing literature this paper analyzes how – at the turn of the century and into the 21st century – activists in Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia constructed narratives that focused on " the people in action ". Advocates of the insurrections framed myths of the pure and oppressed people revolting against the tyranny of economic and political elites. Elites responded by differentiating the authentic people from the mob. Indigenous and other poor and non-white protestors were portrayed by elites as the rabble, as uncivilized, and in general, as a danger to democracy. Resumo: Com base na literatura existente este estudo analisa como – na virada do século e no século 21 – ativistas no Equador, Venezuela e Bolívia construíram narrativas voltadas para " o povo em ação ". Os defensores das insurreições enquadraram as suas ações em mitos dos povos puros e oprimidos se revoltando contra a tirania das elites econômicas e políticas. Elites responderam diferenciando " o povo autêntico " da turba. Manifestantes pobres, não-brancos e indígenas foram retratados pelas elites como a ralé, como não civilizados, e, em geral, como um perigo para a democracia. Resumen: Sobre la base de la literatura existente este trabajo analiza cómo – en el cambio de siglo y en el siglo 21 – activistas en Ecuador, Venezuela y Bolivia
The regimes of Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa undermine contestation while simultane... more The regimes of Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa undermine contestation while simultaneously increasing the material inclusion of the poor and the excluded. These regimes that are usually lumped together show distinct patterns in fostering participation. Whereas in Ecuador participation is reduced to voting in elections, participatory institutions were created in Venezuela and Bolivia. And whereas mobilization in Bolivia comes mostly from the bottom up, in Venezuela and Ecuador it comes from the top-down. To compare their divergent patterns this paper analyses: 1) the strength of subaltern organizations when these leaders were elected; 2) the confrontation between governments and the oppositions; and 3) the views of democratization of the coalitions that brought these regimes to power. Resumen: En nombre del pueblo: democratización, organizaciones populares y populismo en Venezuela, Bolivia y Ecuador Los regímenes de Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales y Rafael Correa atentan en contra del plura-lismo a la vez que incluyen materialmente a los pobres y a los excluidos. Estos regímenes que por lo general son aglutinados en un mismo saco tienen diferentes patrones para promo-ver la participación política. Es así que mientras que en Ecuador la participación se reduce a votar en elecciones, en Venezuela y Bolivia se crearon instituciones participativas. Mientras que en Bolivia la participación viene en gran medida desde las bases, en Ecuador y Vene-zuela viene desde arriba hacia abajo. Para comparar los diferentes patrones este trabajo estu-dia: 1) la fuerza de organizaciones de los subalternos cuando estos líderes fueron electos; 2) la confrontación entre el gobierno y las oposiciones; 3) las visiones sobre democratización de las coaliciones que llevaron al poder a estos líderes. Palabras clave: populismo, mo-vimientos sociales, autoritarismo, democratización.
Building on past and current experiences of populism in Latin America,
this article makes four ar... more Building on past and current experiences of populism in Latin America, this article makes four arguments. First, whereas populist movements seeking power promise to democratize society by challenging the legitimacy of exclusionary institutions, populist governments often include the excluded at the cost of disfiguring democracy. Second, during populist events the meanings of the ambiguous term ‘the people’ are disputed. When social movements are weak, and when the institutions of liberal democracy are discredited, a populist leader could attempt to become the embodiment of the will of the people. Third, even though the concept of the people is central to populism, it could be constructed differently. It could be imagined as heterogeneous and plural, or as the people-as-one, as an entity that shares one identity and interest that could be embodied in a leader. Fourth, populism shares with fascism an imaginary construction of the people-as-one. Yet differently from fascism, which staged extraordinary politics as war against internal and external enemies, populists staged their extraordinariness as winning popular elections and did not establish dictatorships.
Exceto onde especificado diferentemente, a matéria publicada neste periódico é licenciada sob for... more Exceto onde especificado diferentemente, a matéria publicada neste periódico é licenciada sob forma de uma licença Creative Commons-Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. Abstract: Building on the existing literature this paper analyzes how – at the turn of the century and into the 21st century – activists in Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia constructed narratives that focused on " the people in action ". Advocates of the insurrections framed myths of the pure and oppressed people revolting against the tyranny of economic and political elites. Elites responded by differentiating the authentic people from the mob. Indigenous and other poor and non-white protestors were portrayed by elites as the rabble, as uncivilized, and in general, as a danger to democracy. Resumo: Com base na literatura existente este estudo analisa como – na virada do século e no século 21 – ativistas no Equador, Venezuela e Bolívia construíram narrativas voltadas para " o povo em ação ". Os defensores das insurreições enquadraram as suas ações em mitos dos povos puros e oprimidos se revoltando contra a tirania das elites econômicas e políticas. Elites responderam diferenciando " o povo autêntico " da turba. Manifestantes pobres, não-brancos e indígenas foram retratados pelas elites como a ralé, como não civilizados, e, em geral, como um perigo para a democracia. Resumen: Sobre la base de la literatura existente este trabajo analiza cómo – en el cambio de siglo y en el siglo 21 – activistas en Ecuador, Venezuela y Bolivia
This chapter explores how scholars have conceptualized the relationship between Latin American po... more This chapter explores how scholars have conceptualized the relationship between Latin American populism and democracy. It analyzes different approaches to populism such as modernization and dependency theory, and current approaches that focus on discourse analysis and/or political strategies. The chapter focuses on the current wave of radical populism to explore the continuities and differences between " classical " populism of leaders such as Juan Pero´n, the " neopopulism " of Alberto Fujimori, and the radical populism of Hugo Cha´vez, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa. Gino Germani an Italian-born sociologist who sought refuge from Mussolini's jail in Argentina set the research agenda for the study of Latin American populism. He argued that national populist regimes, such as Peronism, were a phase in the transition to modernity. Relying on mass society he claimed that abrupt process of modernization such as urbanization and industrialization produced masses in a state of anomie that
The article explores the effects of populist polarization in creating strong and long-lasting ins... more The article explores the effects of populist polarization in creating strong and long-lasting institutions based on the rule of law. It focuses on politics and not on the political economy of populism or of natural resource extraction. The first section briefly explains how we understand the contested notions of populism and the rule of law. The second focuses on the paradigmatic case of Juan Perón's first two administrations (1946-1956) to explore the ambiguous legacies of populist inclusion for the creation of long-lasting democratic institutions. The third section focuses on how Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales and Rafael Correa appealed to the unbounded will of the people to convene participatory constituent assemblies. The last section focuses on Ecuador's post-populist succession. Different from Evo Morales that was ousted by a coup, or Nicolás Maduro that killed democracy, Lenín Moreno, who was Correa's former vice-president, abandoned populism, ditched his mentor, and used a referendum to clean the state and political institutions from Cor-rea's allies. Appealing to the people directly, his administration assumed exceptional powers to name new authorities of control and accountability. His institutional reforms however might not last because they were based on the exclusion of Correa and his followers. The conclusion explores the reasons why actors continue to use laws instrumentally making it difficult to create long-lasting institutional arrangements based on the rule of law, and hence on the possibility of deepening democracy.
The twenty-first century could well become known as the populist century. No
longer c... more The twenty-first century could well become known as the populist century. No longer confined to Latin America or to the margins of European politics, populism has spread to Africa, Asia, and, with Donald Trump's election, to the cradle of liberal democracy. Even though it is uncertain what impact Trump's populism will have on American democracy, it is worth learning from Latin America, where populists have been in power from the 1930s and 1940s to the present. Even as Latin American populists like Juan Perón and Hugo Chávez included the poor and the nonwhite in the political community, they moved toward authoritarianism by undermining democracy from within. Are the foundations of American democracy and the institutions of civil society strong enough to resist US president Donald Trump's right-wing populism?
This contribution discusses the advantages and disadvantages of Cas Mudde’s minimalist
definition... more This contribution discusses the advantages and disadvantages of Cas Mudde’s minimalist definition to study populism. It argues that his proposal might facilitate consensus among scholars, yet his conceptualization is an obstacle to grasp the complexity of populism in its diverse manifestations over space and time. Moreover, some underlying normative assumptions limit the reach of his concept to small rightwing populist European parties at the fringes of the political system. The article argues for the necessity to recognize pluralism and hybridism avoiding any reductionism in populism scholarship. Populism cannot be reduced to one of its components, like a moralist ideology. Populism is also a strategy, a political style, and a discursive frame.
Este artículo utiliza la experiencia de América Latina con el populismo como movimientos que reta... more Este artículo utiliza la experiencia de América Latina con el populismo como movimientos que retan el poder y como gobiernos para explicar las peculiaridades del populismo de Trump y sus efectos en la democracia americana. El trabajo está dividido en tres secciones. La primera compara la ola populista de izquierda que dio fin con el neoliberalismo y la partidocracia en Latinoamérica, con la posible ruptura de Trump del con-senso de las élites demócratas y republicanas que ligaron la globalización con políticas de reconocimiento multicultural. La segunda distingue dife-rentes construcciones de la categoría «el pueblo» y analiza cómo estas cons-trucciones pueden llevar a la inclusión o la exclusión. La tercera se enfoca en las estrategias populistas desde el poder. Cuando las instituciones demo-cráticas son frágiles y los populismos emergen como respuestas a crisis de los partidos y las instituciones de la democracia representativa, los ataques sistemáticos a la prensa, a la sociedad civil y a los derechos políticos lleva-ron a la dinámica que Guillermo O´Donnell caracterizó como la muerte lenta de la democracia y su transformación en autoritarismo. Institucio-nes más fuertes, sociedades civiles más complejas y movimientos sociales con capacidad de llevar a cabo acciones colectivas duraderas resistieron los impulso autocráticos populistas. Sin embargo, usando la expresión de Nadia Urbinati se desfiguró la democracia reduciendo la complejidad de la polí-tica a una lucha entre dos campos y transformando a un líder en la encar-nación de los valores populares y de la voluntad del pueblo mismo. La elección de Donald Trump llevó al populismo desde los márgenes hasta el centro de la política estadounidense. Si bien movimientos, partidos y líderes populistas trataron de conquistar el poder desde que se fundó el Populist Party en 1891, ningún populista llegó a la presidencia hasta la elec-ción de Trump. Este artículo utiliza la experiencia de América Latina con el populismo como movimientos que retan el poder y como gobiernos para * Artículo aceptado para su publicación el 25 de enero de 2018.
This article analyzes the ambiguities of Bolivarianism on democracy. Led by Hugo Chávez, Bolivari... more This article analyzes the ambiguities of Bolivarianism on democracy. Led by Hugo Chávez, Bolivarianism was an ideology and a strategy of regime transformation and democratization. Its populist language identified internal and external enemies such as US imperialism and elites that served US interests. This meant that the complexity of national and international politics was simplified in these countries to a struggle between two antagonistic camps: neoliberalism vs. the socialism of the twenty-first century; bourgeois-liberal democracy against real democracy; and US led Pan-Americanism vs.Latin Americanism. Bolivarian leaders made clear that clean elections were the only source of democratic legitimacy, and they were at the forefront of the opposition to the military coup d’état of 2009 in Honduras for example. While promoting elections as the only tool to elect and remove leaders, Bolivarian leaders simultaneously undermined democracy from within by concentrating power in the hands of the president, packing the courts with cronies, and using the legal system to punish critics. The paper unravels how Chávez diffused his model of regime transformation, and how Bolivarian leaders learned from his successes.
This article analyzes the contours of populist citizenship as an alternative to neoliberal models... more This article analyzes the contours of populist citizenship as an alternative to neoliberal models of citizenship as consumption, and to liberal models that protect pluralism. It compares how political, socioeconomic, civil, collective, gender, and GLBT rights were imagined and implemented in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador. It explains why despite the expansion of some rights, populists' use of discriminatory legalism to regulate the public sphere and civil society led to the displacement of democracy toward authoritarianism.
Exceto onde especificado diferentemente, a matéria publicada neste periódico é licenciada sob for... more Exceto onde especificado diferentemente, a matéria publicada neste periódico é licenciada sob forma de uma licença Creative Commons-Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. Abstract: Building on the existing literature this paper analyzes how – at the turn of the century and into the 21st century – activists in Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia constructed narratives that focused on " the people in action ". Advocates of the insurrections framed myths of the pure and oppressed people revolting against the tyranny of economic and political elites. Elites responded by differentiating the authentic people from the mob. Indigenous and other poor and non-white protestors were portrayed by elites as the rabble, as uncivilized, and in general, as a danger to democracy. Resumo: Com base na literatura existente este estudo analisa como – na virada do século e no século 21 – ativistas no Equador, Venezuela e Bolívia construíram narrativas voltadas para " o povo em ação ". Os defensores das insurreições enquadraram as suas ações em mitos dos povos puros e oprimidos se revoltando contra a tirania das elites econômicas e políticas. Elites responderam diferenciando " o povo autêntico " da turba. Manifestantes pobres, não-brancos e indígenas foram retratados pelas elites como a ralé, como não civilizados, e, em geral, como um perigo para a democracia. Resumen: Sobre la base de la literatura existente este trabajo analiza cómo – en el cambio de siglo y en el siglo 21 – activistas en Ecuador, Venezuela y Bolivia
The regimes of Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa undermine contestation while simultane... more The regimes of Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa undermine contestation while simultaneously increasing the material inclusion of the poor and the excluded. These regimes that are usually lumped together show distinct patterns in fostering participation. Whereas in Ecuador participation is reduced to voting in elections, participatory institutions were created in Venezuela and Bolivia. And whereas mobilization in Bolivia comes mostly from the bottom up, in Venezuela and Ecuador it comes from the top-down. To compare their divergent patterns this paper analyses: 1) the strength of subaltern organizations when these leaders were elected; 2) the confrontation between governments and the oppositions; and 3) the views of democratization of the coalitions that brought these regimes to power. Resumen: En nombre del pueblo: democratización, organizaciones populares y populismo en Venezuela, Bolivia y Ecuador Los regímenes de Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales y Rafael Correa atentan en contra del plura-lismo a la vez que incluyen materialmente a los pobres y a los excluidos. Estos regímenes que por lo general son aglutinados en un mismo saco tienen diferentes patrones para promo-ver la participación política. Es así que mientras que en Ecuador la participación se reduce a votar en elecciones, en Venezuela y Bolivia se crearon instituciones participativas. Mientras que en Bolivia la participación viene en gran medida desde las bases, en Ecuador y Vene-zuela viene desde arriba hacia abajo. Para comparar los diferentes patrones este trabajo estu-dia: 1) la fuerza de organizaciones de los subalternos cuando estos líderes fueron electos; 2) la confrontación entre el gobierno y las oposiciones; 3) las visiones sobre democratización de las coaliciones que llevaron al poder a estos líderes. Palabras clave: populismo, mo-vimientos sociales, autoritarismo, democratización.
Building on past and current experiences of populism in Latin America,
this article makes four ar... more Building on past and current experiences of populism in Latin America, this article makes four arguments. First, whereas populist movements seeking power promise to democratize society by challenging the legitimacy of exclusionary institutions, populist governments often include the excluded at the cost of disfiguring democracy. Second, during populist events the meanings of the ambiguous term ‘the people’ are disputed. When social movements are weak, and when the institutions of liberal democracy are discredited, a populist leader could attempt to become the embodiment of the will of the people. Third, even though the concept of the people is central to populism, it could be constructed differently. It could be imagined as heterogeneous and plural, or as the people-as-one, as an entity that shares one identity and interest that could be embodied in a leader. Fourth, populism shares with fascism an imaginary construction of the people-as-one. Yet differently from fascism, which staged extraordinary politics as war against internal and external enemies, populists staged their extraordinariness as winning popular elections and did not establish dictatorships.
Exceto onde especificado diferentemente, a matéria publicada neste periódico é licenciada sob for... more Exceto onde especificado diferentemente, a matéria publicada neste periódico é licenciada sob forma de uma licença Creative Commons-Atribuição 4.0 Internacional. Abstract: Building on the existing literature this paper analyzes how – at the turn of the century and into the 21st century – activists in Ecuador, Venezuela and Bolivia constructed narratives that focused on " the people in action ". Advocates of the insurrections framed myths of the pure and oppressed people revolting against the tyranny of economic and political elites. Elites responded by differentiating the authentic people from the mob. Indigenous and other poor and non-white protestors were portrayed by elites as the rabble, as uncivilized, and in general, as a danger to democracy. Resumo: Com base na literatura existente este estudo analisa como – na virada do século e no século 21 – ativistas no Equador, Venezuela e Bolívia construíram narrativas voltadas para " o povo em ação ". Os defensores das insurreições enquadraram as suas ações em mitos dos povos puros e oprimidos se revoltando contra a tirania das elites econômicas e políticas. Elites responderam diferenciando " o povo autêntico " da turba. Manifestantes pobres, não-brancos e indígenas foram retratados pelas elites como a ralé, como não civilizados, e, em geral, como um perigo para a democracia. Resumen: Sobre la base de la literatura existente este trabajo analiza cómo – en el cambio de siglo y en el siglo 21 – activistas en Ecuador, Venezuela y Bolivia
This chapter explores how scholars have conceptualized the relationship between Latin American po... more This chapter explores how scholars have conceptualized the relationship between Latin American populism and democracy. It analyzes different approaches to populism such as modernization and dependency theory, and current approaches that focus on discourse analysis and/or political strategies. The chapter focuses on the current wave of radical populism to explore the continuities and differences between " classical " populism of leaders such as Juan Pero´n, the " neopopulism " of Alberto Fujimori, and the radical populism of Hugo Cha´vez, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa. Gino Germani an Italian-born sociologist who sought refuge from Mussolini's jail in Argentina set the research agenda for the study of Latin American populism. He argued that national populist regimes, such as Peronism, were a phase in the transition to modernity. Relying on mass society he claimed that abrupt process of modernization such as urbanization and industrialization produced masses in a state of anomie that
ed. por Francisco Colom González. Bogotá, Planeta Colombia (Crítica) – Universidad Nacional de Colombia., 2016
Este libro aborda el estudio de la ciudad concebida simultáneamente como una comunidad humana, co... more Este libro aborda el estudio de la ciudad concebida simultáneamente como una comunidad humana, como un espacio para la interacción social y como un entorno material construido por sus moradores a lo largo de generaciones. Pero las ciudades son también receptáculo y portadoras de significados articulados mediante las relaciones sociales. En este último sentido, las ciudades se nos muestran como espacios normativamente mediados, como una concreción de los valores e intereses que han contribuido a configurar su imagen, real o figurada, en el tiempo. Algunas ciudades fueron asociadas con ideales que han quedado reflejados en su diseño y estructura, convirtiéndolas en auténticos archivos de la memoria, lo que nos permite leerlas como un texto. Para leer una ciudad necesitamos conocer su historia, su organización social y económica, su trama urbana y patrimonio arquitectónico, así como los relatos que narran cómo la ciudad ha llegado a ser lo que es y cómo ha sido vista por sus coetáneos. A través de una serie de ensayos referidos al ámbito mediterráneo e iberoamericano, este volumen propone explorar la morfopolítica de la ciudad, esto es, los nexos reconocibles entre las normas, las imágenes y las formas de lo urbano. En la primera parte se ofrece una amplia perspectiva de los regímenes políticos de lo urbano en distintos contextos históricos, desde la Roma antigua y el mundo islámico hasta la Europa renacentista y la América colonial y postcolonial. La segunda parte del libro aborda la relación entre determinadas manifestaciones estéticas de lo urbano y los imaginarios sociales reconocibles a través de ellas.
Uploads
Papers by carlos de la torre
longer confined to Latin America or to the margins of European politics, populism
has spread to Africa, Asia, and, with Donald Trump's election, to the cradle of
liberal democracy. Even though it is uncertain what impact Trump's populism will
have on American democracy, it is worth learning from Latin America, where
populists have been in power from the 1930s and 1940s to the present. Even as
Latin American populists like Juan Perón and Hugo Chávez included the poor and
the nonwhite in the political community, they moved toward authoritarianism by
undermining democracy from within. Are the foundations of American democracy
and the institutions of civil society strong enough to resist US president Donald
Trump's right-wing populism?
definition to study populism. It argues that his proposal might facilitate consensus
among scholars, yet his conceptualization is an obstacle to grasp the complexity of
populism in its diverse manifestations over space and time. Moreover, some underlying
normative assumptions limit the reach of his concept to small rightwing populist
European parties at the fringes of the political system. The article argues for the necessity
to recognize pluralism and hybridism avoiding any reductionism in populism
scholarship. Populism cannot be reduced to one of its components, like a moralist ideology.
Populism is also a strategy, a political style, and a discursive frame.
two antagonistic camps: neoliberalism vs. the socialism of the twenty-first century; bourgeois-liberal democracy against real democracy; and US led Pan-Americanism vs.Latin Americanism. Bolivarian leaders made clear that clean elections were the only source of democratic legitimacy, and they were at the forefront of the opposition to the military coup d’état of 2009 in Honduras for example. While promoting elections as the only tool to elect and remove leaders, Bolivarian leaders simultaneously undermined
democracy from within by concentrating power in the hands of the president, packing the courts with cronies, and using the legal system to punish critics. The paper unravels how Chávez diffused his model of regime transformation, and how Bolivarian leaders learned from his successes.
this article makes four arguments. First, whereas populist movements
seeking power promise to democratize society by challenging the
legitimacy of exclusionary institutions, populist governments often
include the excluded at the cost of disfiguring democracy. Second,
during populist events the meanings of the ambiguous term ‘the
people’ are disputed. When social movements are weak, and when
the institutions of liberal democracy are discredited, a populist
leader could attempt to become the embodiment of the will of the
people. Third, even though the concept of the people is central to
populism, it could be constructed differently. It could be imagined as
heterogeneous and plural, or as the people-as-one, as an entity that
shares one identity and interest that could be embodied in a leader.
Fourth, populism shares with fascism an imaginary construction
of the people-as-one. Yet differently from fascism, which staged
extraordinary politics as war against internal and external enemies,
populists staged their extraordinariness as winning popular elections
and did not establish dictatorships.
longer confined to Latin America or to the margins of European politics, populism
has spread to Africa, Asia, and, with Donald Trump's election, to the cradle of
liberal democracy. Even though it is uncertain what impact Trump's populism will
have on American democracy, it is worth learning from Latin America, where
populists have been in power from the 1930s and 1940s to the present. Even as
Latin American populists like Juan Perón and Hugo Chávez included the poor and
the nonwhite in the political community, they moved toward authoritarianism by
undermining democracy from within. Are the foundations of American democracy
and the institutions of civil society strong enough to resist US president Donald
Trump's right-wing populism?
definition to study populism. It argues that his proposal might facilitate consensus
among scholars, yet his conceptualization is an obstacle to grasp the complexity of
populism in its diverse manifestations over space and time. Moreover, some underlying
normative assumptions limit the reach of his concept to small rightwing populist
European parties at the fringes of the political system. The article argues for the necessity
to recognize pluralism and hybridism avoiding any reductionism in populism
scholarship. Populism cannot be reduced to one of its components, like a moralist ideology.
Populism is also a strategy, a political style, and a discursive frame.
two antagonistic camps: neoliberalism vs. the socialism of the twenty-first century; bourgeois-liberal democracy against real democracy; and US led Pan-Americanism vs.Latin Americanism. Bolivarian leaders made clear that clean elections were the only source of democratic legitimacy, and they were at the forefront of the opposition to the military coup d’état of 2009 in Honduras for example. While promoting elections as the only tool to elect and remove leaders, Bolivarian leaders simultaneously undermined
democracy from within by concentrating power in the hands of the president, packing the courts with cronies, and using the legal system to punish critics. The paper unravels how Chávez diffused his model of regime transformation, and how Bolivarian leaders learned from his successes.
this article makes four arguments. First, whereas populist movements
seeking power promise to democratize society by challenging the
legitimacy of exclusionary institutions, populist governments often
include the excluded at the cost of disfiguring democracy. Second,
during populist events the meanings of the ambiguous term ‘the
people’ are disputed. When social movements are weak, and when
the institutions of liberal democracy are discredited, a populist
leader could attempt to become the embodiment of the will of the
people. Third, even though the concept of the people is central to
populism, it could be constructed differently. It could be imagined as
heterogeneous and plural, or as the people-as-one, as an entity that
shares one identity and interest that could be embodied in a leader.
Fourth, populism shares with fascism an imaginary construction
of the people-as-one. Yet differently from fascism, which staged
extraordinary politics as war against internal and external enemies,
populists staged their extraordinariness as winning popular elections
and did not establish dictatorships.