Populism is unique in that it can take on many shapes and is not tied to either end of the political spectrum but is rather an ideology. Populist leaders also rarely claim the title themselves but rather are typically boisterous and charismatic leaders, boasting that they are the voice of the “pure people” and fight for their interests against the “others” who subject the people/ majority.

The rise in populism in Latin America is considered by many scholars as its third wave, originating from the ideology of the Russian Narodinks in the late nineteenth century. With this third wave, many countries have seen a rise is authoritarian populists leaders on both wings of the political spectrum, using nationlistic rhetoric to convey themselves as the leader and will of “the people” against their common enemy, whether that be in the forms of elites at home or outside force abroad. Regardless of the left or the right ideologies of these leaders, countries such as Bolivia, Colombia, Brazil, Venezuela, and El Salvador have all experienced these charismatic and energizing leaders.

One such example of this authoritarian populism can be seen with Bolivia’s Evo Morales and his MAS (Movement toward Socialism) party is a prime example of this new era of leftist populist leaders. Since his rise to power in 2006, Evo, as he is known by Bolivians, has become renowned for his boisterous and populist style of speeches. Often using terms like hermanos (brothers) in his speech to rally his followers, he references the “poor and humble” people as a priority for his regime while blaming the old foreign investors in the country as the evil that had to be purged from the country to avoid ruin. He has also sought to consolidate his own power by changing or eliminating governmental institutions. Along with his populist us vs them rhetoric, promising a grand revolution for the people against the elite, he successfully rewrote the constitution in his first years of ruling, allowing him to run for an additional term and centralized the control of power in the executive, legislative, and judicial. In the general election in 2019, voting was plagued with inconsistencies, with the vote stopping short and the judicial tribunal the Evo had a hand in called the election in his favor. These are clear examples of the three features of populist governance as Muller has defined them. Evo has hijacked the state apparatus by rewriting the constitution, exhibited mass clientelism by packing the tribunal courts and public offices with followers of his party and regime, and attempted to suppress civil society by threatening protests when his election in 2019 was put into question.  

The irony of this leftist populism is that it is working. The majority of Evo’s followers, the rural poor and blue-collar workers have benefitted from his power consolidation. The country’s economy has grown at a steady rate, and the income inequality gap between the rich and the poor has shrunk. This theme is not unique to Bolivia, as many populists leaders have used the antagonistic stance of the poor against the elite to persuade their followers. This common factor that plays a role in the rise of populism is reinforced in Acemoglu’s work, citing the role that economics has in the rise of dictatorships.   

These leftist populist leaders’ success raises the question, does the benefits that the traditionally poor and underrepresented portions of the populations in these countries outweigh the erosion of democratic institutions that these populist leaders are causing? 
While I generally support the rise of the poor majority over the few elite, it does draw concern. Populism and the leaders that are drawn to it can lead to a runaway freight train of the masses. In his work, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy, Schumpeter sums this theory up by stating that the electoral mass is incapable of action other than stampedes. Many governmental institutions have been put in place to slow the pace of change and prevent drastic shifts in a country’s government and/or economy. Authoritarian populists that are quick to rise in power by using the “true will” of “the people” tend to be quick and willing to destroy the institutional pillars of their country’s democracy. This has often led countries into periods of tremendous inflation and economic recessions or the complete overthrow of the regime with military or other party coups. This represents the stability that solid foundational democracy brings to a country and while there may be periods of inequality and injustice, the life of everyday citizens does trend to betterment over time.