Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
In the 1990s Venezuela experienced the rise of a new anti-party movement built around the figure of Hugo Cha´vez and dedicated to the fundamental transformation of society, a movement that most Venezuelans call Chavismo. If we define populism in strictly political terms—as the presence of what some scholars call a charismatic mode of linkage between voters and politicians, and a democratic discourse that relies on the idea of a popular will and a struggle between 'the people' and 'the elite'—then Chavismo is clearly a populist phenomenon. Chavismo relies on charismatic linkages between voters and politicians, a relationship largely unmediated by any institutionalised party. It also bases itself on a powerful, Manichaean discourse of 'the people versus the elite' that naturally encourages an 'anything goes' attitude among Cha´vez's supporters. In this paper I demonstrate these points through a descriptive account, based on interviews performed in Caracas during autumn 1999, May 2000 and February 2003, as well as on published texts available in Venezuela. I also use this account to support an analytical claim that these populist qualities undermine Chavismo's democratic goals.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kirk A. Hawkins (2003) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: