Populism as a type of political leadership was initially introduced due to social changes and economic growth. This concept emerged with the new ideas of caudillos catering to the population’s needs, however distinct they were. In addition, leaders aimed at sustaining the balance between demands of different social groups to achieve the primary goals when leading the country. Overall, populism’s emergence was provoked by immigrants and the working classes, which further led to the politicians shifting their focus on improving the wellbeing of the members of different social groups.
To begin with, this type of leadership was mainly based on the charisma and the strong personality of caudillo, which focused on appealing to the masses. Nevertheless, populism became influenced by anarcho-syndicalism that was introduced by the immigrants from Spain and Italy (Burkholder et al., 2018). It posed a challenge for populist leaders as while they were gaining support from the publicity to achieve various reforms, followers of anarchism were oppressing the leaders to seek solutions to the problems themselves. This type of activism was mainly welcomed by the immigrants who were “excluded from political participation” at the time (Burkholder et al., 2018, p. 276). Anarchists demanded equality and, at the same time, improved workplace conditions, so they established the following organizations: “the Regional Argentine Workers’ Federation” and “the Brazilian Workers’ Confederation” (Burkholder et al., 2018, p. 276). As a result, the leaders of the aforementioned unions gained support from the working classes, giving them enough power to the populists’ authority in the future.
Still, when populism and anarcho-syndicalism were initially introduced, the followers of the first type of leadership viewed labor unions as a great source of support. Early populist leaders aimed at gaining the trust of anarchists as the growing working class was indeed a source of potential voters who could easily support social, economic, and political reforms. Besides, labor unions required ties with political parties to have enough power and resources to protect their members and accomplish the protection and expansion of the workers’ rights (Burkholder et al., 2018). Thus, the fruitful cooperation of populist leaders and anarchists considerably benefited both sides.
The difference between the aims of anarchists and populists further contributed to the conflicts between both forces. To be more particular, anarchosyndicalists identified the change as a stoppage of labor and achievement of improved working conditions for publicity. Hence, social control became negatively impacted when this reform became detrimental to sustaining the national economy. Therefore, “as the Russian Revolution inspired a more extreme leftist turn in parts of Latin America,” the populist leaders were forced to use violence and blackmail to restore social control in the country (Burkholder et al., 2018, p. 277). All in all, the conflict between anarchists and populists led to negative alterations in economy and politics, forcing society to choose sides and doubt the authorities’ operations and actual goals.
The emergence of populism was different in Latin American countries due to the approaches that leaders took to follow a new type of leadership. For instance, in 1940, when the concept became familiar for Uruguay, Argentina, and Chile, the leaders used their power and support from the publicity to achieve radical reforms. The fruitful cooperation between authority and society was based on the support of labor unions and the middle class, who demanded the protection of workers’ rights. Still, the political, economic, and social changes were sometimes harmful to the country and residents. However, the citizens of Mexico were not on the side of the followers of revolutionary populism, considering that they were not “rallying behind a charismatic figure … rebelled in what became a 10-year revolution” (Burkholder et al., 2018, p. 276). As for Peru, populists derived support from farmers and plantation workers in the export sector. However, this approach soon proved unsuccessful as leaders focused on “embracing national control over economic resources,” which forced society to doubt their true intentions (Burkholder et al., 2018, p. 281). By and whole, the social changes were negatively impacted by a drastic emergence of community identity and civic activism that followed entirely different ideas compared to populist politicians.
To sum up, the concept of populism was introduced to Latin America at times of an unstable economic situation. However, the influence of immigrants and the working class soon considerably destabilized the populists’ authority, resulting in numerous revolutions and opposition from publicity. The initial emergence of the new type of leadership proved to be unsuccessful; however, further cooperation with society helped politicians restore social control.
Bibliography
Burkholder, Mark A, Monica Rankin, and Lyman L. Johnson. 2018. Exploitation, Inequality, and Resistance: A History of Latin America since Columbus. New York: Oxford University Press.