Populist Ideas Spread Through All Of Latin America

Models for post-revolutionary Latin American government are born of the complex economic and social realities of 17th and 18th century Europe. From the momentum of the Enlightenment came major political rebellions of the elite class against entrenched national monarchies and systems of power. Within this time period of elitist revolt and intensive political restructuring, the fundamental basis for both liberal and conservative ideology was driven deep into Latin American soil. However, as neither ideology sought to fulfill or even recognize the needs or rights of mestizo people under government rule, the initial liberal doctrine pervading Latin American nations perpetuated

Venezuela is a country located in the northern area of South America that’s national language is Spanish. It is a very complex and interesting country with many important events in the past as well as some current events that have made headlines. Venezuela has been struggling with development for a long time and it has a landscape that can sometimes make it quite hard to build roads and tracks, thus hindering the forward progress of the nation. Venezuela is a democratic country with a democratically elected president, but that doesn’t mean that everything is going along fine. Even though the people of Venezuela elected Hugo Chavez and Nicolas Maduro in the election of 2012, there have been a lot of recent protests against

Populism movements across Latin America in the twentieth century were unique to the populations which they represented. Although these many populist movements share characteristics, such as having charismatic leaders and placing importance on the political participation of traditionally underrepresented groups, the generalized definition of populism fails to recognize the individualized nature of populism as the needs, circumstances, and experiences of different populations created unique populists movements.1 Along the same lines, the depiction of populism through the experiences of a male working class only, erodes the importance of the female working class which played

The instability that characterized much of Latin American politics in the 1960’s led to a number of uprisings in various

Venezuela is a country with an exceptional history. Ever since the collapse of the Gran Colombia in 1830, Venezuela has been ruled by military leaders until mid-20th century (CIA). Since the mid-1950s, a wave of democratically elected regimes took over in which Venezuela flourished and became one of the few leading economic powers in the Latin American region (CIA). With large oil revenues funding the government, the country’s political and economic institutions became effective, and what was once a military oppressed environment was now a thriving and liberalized economy. Unfortunately, many of these institutions began to deteriorate from corruption and inexperience of officials. Also, Oil prices began to decline and the country began to

Another reason for stimulation in Venezuela was the fact of “foreign control of the oil industry for much of the twentieth century reinforced these values” (7). The more that Venezuela was involved in trade with other countries like the United States for example made the country similar to advanced Western nations. As Venezuela began to improve economic and social standing in the world their voice became stronger and the country began to influence international debates on many issues affecting the world. Venezuela was going through so many rapid changes that the United States could not keep up with these constant changes. Furthermore, even though the United States is still a prominent factor for Venezuela they wanted to further their ties with other countries for a better chance for investments, they began to trade with countries such as, “Brazil, India, Iran, Russia and China”

Venezuela, officially, the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, is a country on the northern tip of South America and bordering Columbia. Hugo Chaves was elected the President of Venezuela in 1999 after serving in the Venezuelan Army from 1976-1991 and leading an attempted coup and after beginning his political rise in 1994. One political stance that Chavez adopted was Populism and, once elected, he enacted a national economic policy that kept gasoline prices stagnant and extremely low through government subsidies. Chavez remained in power for 14 years and throughout his entire rule he kept that policy in place to retain the approval of

Populism in Latin America was characterized by a combination of nationalism, often coded with the language of anti-imperialism and anti-Americanism, and class politics. However, populism did not appeal solely to workers; rather, populist leaders attempted to create broad coalitions of people who believed that Latin American countries needed economic and political reform. The populists were generally opposed by the rural elite, which had held power throughout Latin America since the age of colonialism. Additionally, many Latin American leaders began to embrace dependencia theory; i.e. they believed that Latin America would remain poor and under the control of Western business interests as long as Latin America remained dependant on Western, specifically American, capital and imports. These leaders advocated Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI), a form of industrialization in which a country would become self-sustaining by replacing

Populism gained traction as a response to the increasingly growing demography of working class and urban lower middle class who were susceptible to political mobilization. La Moral in Columbia came into effect because the political stalwarts at the time were averse to democratic governance and thus resisted the democratization process. The populism frenzy peaked in the late 1950’s. The leaders at the time campaigned for office in line with populist fashion. These politicians were flamboyant in their election campaigns. They would sway the masses and newly minted voters into accepting their political ideologies and manifestos.

Venezuela is a late bloomer in regard to having complete independence and in terms of running its own democratic government. Right now, the Venezuelan people are in the midst of the same debate that has historically plagued countries all over the world; the country is torn between class lines and is another classic example of the haves versus the have-nots. Caracas is the capital and the Andes region is home to two-thirds of the population. Mestizos make up 67% of the population, with 21% descending from white Europeans (primarily Spanish and Portuguese), blacks are 10%, and Amerinds are 2%. Unfortunately, the middle class has declined by as much as 25% since the

When Hugo Chavez ushered in his era of “21st Century Socialism” in 1999, the people of Venezuela expected an era of prosperity. During the oil boom of the early 2000s, Venezuela’s state owned oil industry funded over half of Chavez’s social programs and conditions started to improve. The standard of living increased, inequality and poverty rates fell, and Chavez generated a cult-like following. Economic and social conditions increased significantly, but so did inflation and poor policy. After Chavez’s death in 2013, Nicolas Maduro, his handpicked replacement, took the reins. After only a year with Maduro at the helm, the Venezuelan economy collapsed as the global oil market fell from 2014 to 2015. Venezuela, once the most powerful nation in

To understand the current Venezuelan power structure –which is the legacy of the Chavista regime- it is important to take into account the promises diseased President Hugo Chavez made when he first came into power in 1998. He won under the oath of creating a new Constitution that

Mass popular struggles appeared in Bolivia, Ecuador and other Latin American countries as a backlash of elites’ control over society and their consequent eroding legitimacy (Robinson, 2007; Beasly-Murray, Cameron & Hershberg, 2009). Even though dictatorships had been replaced by democracies, weak political parties and corruption made government unable to tackle the populations’ discontent. The neoliberal order and its flaws were seriously contested as two decades of such policies did little to alleviate the living conditions of the poor (LeoGrande, 2007; Dello Buono & Belle Lara, 2007). In the birthplace of neoliberalism, the ideology was crumbling. In 2006, three out of four Latin Americans felt that ‘their government worked on behalf of powerful special interests rather than for the general welfare, and in no country did a majority think the government operated for the public good’ (Corporación latinobarómetro 2006:73). This type of citizens forms the core of the new left electorate (LeoGrande, 2007). They expected a more equal distribution of land and wealth that should be realised through the state: regulation of the markets when they fail, promotion of health, education and social programmes, re-nationalisation of the region’s raw resources, etc. (Robinson, 2007; LeoGrande, 2007). In this

Opinions about the state of democratic governance in Venezuela during the government of President Hugo Chávez Frías have been polarized. Some critics come close to labeling it a dictatorship while others, his supporters, claim to be restoring a truly democratic regime to Venezuela. Venezuelan society is polarized along political lines and this climate does not help to consolidate liberal democracy. In such a context, it is easy to fall into simplistic, black and white views; however, it is important to seek a more gradual and balanced appreciation of the complex issues at play. There also should be an understanding of how Venezuelans themselves view the state of their democracy. Assessments of the functioning of democracy should also take

This question focuses on whether populism has a direct influence over political and economic issues and events that take place in the world. Populism is a political concept aimed at appealing to common/ordinary people that have been taken advantage of by the privileged. Populism isn’t a negative ideology however; many politicians use it in a dismissive and condescending manner and to gain personal power. This ideology is linked to leaders that are described as incompetent such as Donald Trump and Jacob Zuma.