Populism, media, and misinformation in Latin America (original) (raw)

Revisiting Latin American Media Democratisation Theories and the Populist Factor

TripleC, 2020

This article deals with the following question: How can Latin American media and communication theories help explain the mediatisation of populism and democracy? The article has a twofold goal: a) it contributes to the study of media, populism and democracy in the context of Latin America; b) it aims to raise awareness outside Latin America about the richness of Latin American media and communication theory for the analysis of the mediation of populism and democracy. The article introduces and engages with a variety of theories from Latin America that deal with globalisation, dependency, cultural imperialism, hybridity, and mediation, and reviews their potentials for explaining the mediatisation of populism and democracy. Theories or models of globalisation, dependency and cultural imperialism, and hybridity and mediation are reviewed analytically, as are some of their core critiques as drawn from various strands of thought, with emphasis on incorporating elements of populism theory. As interest grows in both academia and the media towards the ways in which populism is shaping the social and political spheres in the West, partly encouraged by the recent surge of populist leaders in Europe and the United States, past and current experiences and evaluation of Latin American populism can be constructive in understanding the phenomenon and its implications for communication, media and culture. This study finds that, following political shifts in the twenty-first century, Latin American populism represents a paradigm that is articulated to an important degree through communicative specificities and which can add analytical rigor to competing media and communication theories in the region.

Understanding Contemporary Populism Through the Latin American Experience

AARMS, 2022

This paper discusses how the Latin American experience can help us understand contemporary populism and its management. This topic starts from the assumption that structural change and social contexts help us explain the evolution of populism in the same way they helped explain the evolution of violence and management. To do so, we look at the state of the literature on populism, its relation to the Latin American experience, the evolution of the approach to populism, and the conclusions we can draw from these different perspectives. We conclude that contemporary populism is also limited in the same way the contextual approach to Latin American populism was limited. This also helps us understand why we still do not have a shared definition of populism. Overall, we lack the balance between generalisable and local definitions to help leaders manage the contemporary violence of populism.

Seeing and Not Seeing Populism in Latin America (A Contra Corriente, Fall 2019)

A Contra Corriente, 2019

To understand the current global surge of populist governments, scholars and commentators have pointed to the harms of neoliberalism, the breakdown of democratic norms (Levitsky and Ziblatt 2018), the characteristics of populism and how they differ from fascism (Finchelstein 2017)), and the affects and experiences that drive support for nationalist leaders (Mazzarrella 2019). I suggest a different, if complementary approach to understanding populism by turning to the specificity and complexity of Latin American politics in the 20 th and 21 st century histories. First, I view populism in the context of Latin American nations'

Critical Debates Populism in Latin America: Past, Present, and Future

Populism in Latin America: Past, Present and Future, 2019

Although populism has been growing in prominence in intellectual circles, the phenomenon is not new. Some academics assert that populism began with the People’s Party in the United States, the narodniki movement in Russia, or Boulangism in France (Judis 2016; Rovira Kaltwasser et al. 2017). Others trace its roots to Peronism in Argentina (Germani [1978] 2003; Finchelstein 2017) and populist mobilization in Peru (Jansen 2017). Although in Europe and the United States populism is normally viewed as a recent phenomenon associated with the radical right and postmaterialism (Inglehart and Norris 2017; Mudde 2014), in Latin America, populism has had a long, varied history. Literature on the subject has identified three populist waves in the region: classic populism (1930‒1950), characterized by a strong, charismatic leader and working-class mobilization (Di Tella 1965; Germani [1978] 2003); neopopulism in the 1990s, which saw a paradoxical alliance between populism and neoliberalism (Weyland 1996, 2001); and early twenty-first-century populism, linked with the appearance of a radical left (Collins 2014; Ellner 2003). As this brief survey suggests, analyzing Latin American populism is a complex task. Given the quantity and variety of populisms Latin America has experienced over its history (de la Torre 2017), studying the contemporary intellectual debate surrounding populism is particularly important. Therefore, this essay takes up the study of populism in Latin America, divided in three parts. First, it describes the principal theoretical approaches to populism; namely, the structural, discursive, political-strategic, ideational, and sociocultural approaches. Second, it briefly examines four recent books on populism in Latin America, written by a political scientist (Barr), a communications scholar (Block), a historian (Finchelstein), and a sociologist (Jansen). Third, it proposes some considerations for future research based on the four works reviewed and our own ideas, drawn from recent trends in the international literature on populism.

Democracy, journalism, and Latin American populism

Contemporary populism in Latin America suggests that normative arguments about the relation between journalism and democracy are premised on contrasting models of media democracy. There is no single model of media ethics to offer a single foundation for media democracy. The model represented by the Anglo-American tradition of the liberal press assigns the market a central role, and envisions limited participation of civil society and the state. Instead, models of citizen-based media democracy place civic society at the center, and grant limited and regulated participation to the market and the state. Populism, I argue, fits none of these options. Instead, it offers a model that places the state at the center of media systems and approaches market and civil society as opposed or subjected to the designs of the government. It sees journalism as inevitably divided between 'popular-national' and 'foreign-oligarchic' interests, and views the state as a necessary instrument to redress imbalances in democracies and press systems. The case of populism confirms that answers to questions about journalism and democracy are embedded in contrasting visions about the necessary relations between the state, market, and civil society in democratic life.

The resurgence of populism in Latin America

Bulletin of Latin American Research, 2000

Contemporary manifestations of`neopopulisma are situated in an analysis of the role of political institutions in capitalist societies, and the idea of structural and institutional crisis. It is argued that`populista and`neopopulista discourse alike must be understood in terms of their relationship to speci"c conjunctural projects for the reorientation of capitalist reproduction. This approach directs attention back to the contrasting conjunctures in which classical populist and contemporary neopopulist political projects were launched. It also provides a basis on which contemporary projects which adopt elements of populist strategy and discourse can be compared and evaluated. : S 0 2 6 1 -3 0 5 0 ( 9 9 ) 0 0 0 7 6 -5

The Resurgence of Radical Populism in Latin America

Constellations, 2007

A specter is haunting Latin America: radical populism. Former presidents such as Fernando Henrique Cardoso and respectable media analysts have cautioned us about the dangers of charismatic and plebiscitary domination for democracy. They have warned us of the risks of irresponsible economic policies. A holy alliance is trying to exorcize the ghost of populism that periodically reappears even though its death has been constantly announced and predicted. 1 In contrast to the apocalyptic warnings of the media analysts and politicians we have an accumulated knowledge of populism that can help us arrive to more nuanced conclusions about its relationships to democracy. Over the last three decades we have seen a renaissance of studies. If previous scholarship based on modernization and dependency theories tied populism to specific economic and social forces, 2 this new wave of research has uncoupled politics from what were understood as deeper structural determinants. Scholars have shown that populism is not necessarily linked to the transition to modernity or to import-substitution industrialization. The unexpected affinities between populism and neoliberalism stimulated research on the politics of structural adjustment under neo-populist leadership. 3 More recently, the nationalist and anti-imperialist rhetoric of Presidents Hugo Chávez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Rafael Correa of Ecuador have provoked passionate debates on whether or not we are experiencing a rebirth of radical-national populism. 4 Unsurprisingly, scholars have tended to reproduce the cleavages produced by populist leaders. What for some are authentic forms of expression of the popular will by leaders who empowered those previously disenfranchised, for others are forms of charismatic, authoritarian, and messianic domination. Behind the smoke screen provoked by the praise for national populism or its condemnation we can identify important debates over the meanings and interpretations of democracy. Instead of arguing that populism is the negation or the essence of democracy this article draws on current experiences to explore the uneasy and ambiguous relations between populism and liberal democracy. Populism has been an important democratizing force that has mobilized those previously excluded. It has incorporated common people into the political community. However, the distinctiveness of these processes of inclusion and democratization needs to be specified. What are the forms of political participation and representation privileged by populism? How is democracy understood by the friends and foes of populism? What are the effects of populist rhetoric for the democratization of society? Why do common folk continue to support populist leaders?