LOG IN

ADVERTISEMENT

Opinion
OP-ED CONTRIBUTOR

Will Democracy Survive Trump’s

Populism? Latin America May Tell
Us
By Carlos de la Torre

Dec. 15, 2016

Monitors showed President Hugo Chávez of Venezuela at the 10th anniversary of his
weekly television show, “Alo Presidente,” in 2009. Thomas Coex/Agence France-Presse —
Getty Images

LEXINGTON, Ky. — Will Donald J. Trump follow the populist

script for concentrating power by cracking down on critics? Or are
the foundations of American democracy and the institutions of civil
society strong enough to resist such an action? For answers,
Americans should take a look at Latin America, where, starting in
the 1940s, elected populists undermined democracy.

Populism is not an ideology but a strategy to get to power and to

govern. Two of Latin America’s most influential populists, Juan
Perón of Argentina and Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, saw politics as
a Manichaean confrontation between two antagonistic camps, just
as Mr. Trump does. In their view, they did not face political rivals,
but enemies who needed to be destroyed.

Populist leaders tend to present themselves as extraordinary

characters whose mission is to liberate the people. To get elected
they politicize feelings of fear or resentment. Once in government,
they attack the liberal constitutional framework of democracy that
they view as constraining the will of the people. Populists are
profoundly anti-pluralist, and claim that they embody the people as
a whole. Chávez boasted, “This is not about Hugo Chávez; this is
about a people.” Similarly, Mr. Trump said at a rally in Florida:
“It’s not about me — it’s about all of you. It’s about all of us,
together as a country.”

The terms “people” and “elite” are vague. The “people” of Perón
and Chávez were the downtrodden, and the nonwhite. Mr. Trump’s
“people” are white, mostly Christian citizens who produce wealth
and do not live on government handouts. The enemies of Chávez
and Perón were corrupt politicians, foreign-oriented economic
elites, imperialism and the privately owned news media. In Mr.
Trump’s presidential campaign, Mexicans were cast as the anti-
American other, and Muslims depicted as potential terrorists
whose values are contrary to American Christianity. He painted
African-Americans as delinquents or as victims living in conditions
of alienation and despair. Mr. Trump’s enemies were also the news
media, companies and countries that profit from globalization, and
liberal elites that defend political correctness.

Populists make their own rules for the political game, and part of
their strategy is to manipulate the news media. Chávez and Rafael
Correa, Ecuador’s populist president, blurred the lines between
entertainment and news, using their own weekly TV shows to
announce major policies, attack the opposition, sing popular songs,
and, naturally, fire people. They were always on Twitter
confronting enemies, and television programs showcased their
outrageous words and actions to increase ratings. Mr. Trump
might follow these examples and transform debates on issues of
national interest into reality TV shows.

Since Latin America’s populists feel threatened by those who

question their claim to be the embodiment of their people’s
aspirations, they go after the press. Perón and Chávez nationalized
news outlets that criticized them; Alberto Fujimori of Peru used
tabloids to smear critics; Mr. Correa has used the legal system to
impose astronomical fines on journalists and news media owners.
Diario Hoy, a center-left newspaper in Ecuador at which I was a
columnist, was forced out of business for criticizing the
government. Like many journalists and intellectuals in Ecuador, I
became a target of the president, who insulted me twice on his
national TV show.

Like his Latin American populist cousins, Mr. Trump shows

contempt for the news media. He has threatened newspapers and
journalists with libel suits. While he has softened his attacks on the
news media since the election, a confrontation with watchdog
journalists seems inevitable.

Latin American populists also attack civil society. Similarly, Mr.

Trump has used harsh language against civil rights groups like
Black Lives Matter. Some of his close collaborators are talking
about reviving the Committee on Un-American Activities. His
support of mass deportations, the use of stop-and-frisk in black and
Latino neighborhoods, surveillance of American Muslims, and the
rolling back of rights for women and L.G.B.T. people could also
lead to confrontations with civil- and human-rights organizations.

Latin American populists do not respect constitutional

arrangements like the separation of powers. They attempt to
control the judiciary, to take over all watchdog institutions, and to
create parties based on the unconditional loyalty to a leader. When
leaders come to power amid crises, as when Chávez and Mr.
Correa were elected, they can grab power and establish
authoritarianism at the expense of democracy. In Argentina,
stronger democratic institutions resisted Cristina Fernández de
Kirchner’s strategy of populist polarization, blocking a change to
the Argentine Constitution that would have allowed her to stay in
power for another term.

The United States has a tradition of checks and balances to control

political power. The Constitution divides power into three
branches; elections are spaced; power is split between the states
and the federal government; and there are two dominant parties.
Under these restraints and until Mr. Trump’s election, populism
was confined to the fringes of the political system. Mr. Trump’s
populism under this institutional framework would be no more
than a passing phase, and the American democracy and civil
society would be strong enough to survive populist challenges
without major destabilizing consequences.

But, even if the institutional framework of democracy does not

collapse under Mr. Trump, he has already damaged the democratic
public sphere. Hate speech and the denigration of minorities are
replacing the politics of cultural recognition and tolerance built by
the struggles of feminists and anti-racist social movements since
 the 1960s.

Mr. Trump is a type of political animal unknown to Americans, a

far-right populist autocrat. Sexism, racism and xenophobia got him
elected. As president, he will have the authority to expel the groups
that he campaigned against. Once in power he will continue to
attack the news media, liberal and cosmopolitan elites, and any
other groups that challenge his policies.

Democracy is not immune to populist autocrats. Populist

polarization, attacks on civil rights and the confrontation with the
press could lead in the United States, as in Venezuela and Ecuador,
to authoritarianism. Chávez and Mr. Correa did not eradicate
democracy with a coup d’état. Rather, they slowly strangled
democracy by attacking civil liberties, regulating the public sphere
and using the legal system to silence critics. Americans who value
an inclusive, tolerant and pluralist country need to be on guard
against Mr. Trump’s following in their footsteps.

ADVERTISEMENT

© 2021 The New York Times Company NYTCo Contact Us Accessibility Work with us Advertise T Brand Studio Your Ad Choices Privacy Policy Terms of Service Terms of Sale Site Map Help Subscriptions