Populism is a term used to explain a set of practices associated with politicians, especially in Latin America, during most of the 20th century. In the case of Brazil, this expression is used as a way of explaining the characteristics of the rulers of Brazil in the period between 1930 and 1964.
The definition of populism even made the period from 1946 to 1964 known as “populist republic”. According to the classic definition of this term, Getúlio Vargas, Juscelino Kubitschek, Janio Quadros and João Goulart were practical examples of populist politicians in Brazil.
Read too: Getúlio Vargas — great symbol of populism in Brazil
Characteristics of populism
Based on the basic definition of populism, historian Marcos Napolitano listed the following characteristics1:
1. Direct and non-institutionalized relationship between the leader and the masses: the classic definition of the “charismatic leader” is presented here, one who creates a close relationship with the masses without going through any political institution, but only through his charisma.
2. Strong economic nationalism and defense of mass unity: relates to the tendency of populist politicians to adopt nationalist economic measures. Furthermore, the discourse is always aimed at reconciling different social classes. So the leader does not speak for a specific class, but for the nation.
3. Political leadership based on personal charisma and patronage network: the power of the political leader is centered on his charisma and on the network of exchange of favors developed from that leadership.
4. fragile party system: the political institutions of nations with populist regimes were fragile. In addition, there was a very embryonic (or non-existent) party system, since power was concentrated in the figure of the leader and not in the institutionalized political system.
This characterization of populism is not only related to the Brazilian reality of the aforementioned period (1930-1964), but is also used to explain the historical experiences of other Latin American countries, such as Peronism (Argentina), Cardenism (Mexico) and Aprismo (Peru). In Brazil, the great symbol of populism was Getúlio Vargas, especially during the period of It was Vargas from 1930 to 1945.
Furthermore, this explanation raises the hypothesis that populism would have been a stage intermediary faced by "backward" companies in the process of development and modernization of your society. This idea says that, because these societies faced very strong tensions as they urbanized, populism would have been the political stage responsible for mediating this conflict of interests in the transition to a higher stage. development.
Do not stop now... There's more after the advertising ;)
Criticism of populism
The use of the term populism as an explanation for the political phenomena in Brazil and Latin America was very strong during most of the 20th century. In the case of Brazil, this expression lost part of its importance from the 1990s, when historians and political scientists began to raise hypotheses that O populism was not able to explain the entire historical experience of Brazil of the period in question.
The first idea questioned was that the masses were manipulated by the charismatic leader's speech. The new studies highlight that, in fact, the masses were not manipulated by the political leader, but saw him as responsible for satisfying their demands.
Those historians also question core elements of populism, as the idea that the leader's relationship with the people was not institutionalized. In relation to this issue, it is considered the fact that all presidents from the period 1946 to 1964 needed political support to sustain themselves in power.
Taking all these aspects into account, the concept of populism is not enough to explain a considerable part of the Brazilian political experience of that period. Getúlio Vargas and João Goulart are two clear examples of this, as their governments were imploded as they failed to receive political support from the legislature. The case of João Goulart even paved the way for the consummation of the 1964 coup, which interrupted all this political experiment.
Finally, it is important to consider that, contrary to what the concept states, the Brazilian party system during this phase was quite strong, and the election of presidents obligatorily required political alliances to be forged. In addition, throughout this period, the citizen's identification with the party increased.
As a result of these criticisms of the term, the period of our history previously known as Populist Republic is named today as Fourth Brazilian Republic or Republic of 46. It is concluded, then, that the term populism can explain part of the political experience in Brazil between 1930 and 1946, but it does not clarify its totality and complexity.
Read too: Peronism - period in Argentine history marked by populism and authoritarianism
populist presidents
Within the aforementioned period (1946 to 1964), the Brazilian presidents were:
Eurico Gaspar Dutra (1946-51)
Getúlio Vargas (1951-54)
Juscelino Kubitschek (1956-61)
Jânio Quadros (1961)
João Goulart (1961-64)
Among the names cited, the last four were seen as politicians embodying the classic definition of populism. To see the complete list of presidents who took over the government of Brazil during this period, we recommend accessing this text: Fourth Republic.
right-wing populism
Recently, right-wing populism emerged in political science, a concept used to define practices considered populist used by politicians who are righton the political spectrum or that present conservative discourses.
According to scholars in the field, the growth of right-wing populism is a phenomenon that has been happening for, approximately 30 years and which is related to social and political crises, as well as to changes caused by globalization.
Scientists claim that, in right-wing populism, politicians assume consolidated practices of populism, such as the personification the will of the leader as the will of the people, combined with other practices, such as anti-elite discourse and attacks against the intellectualism. Another very strong characteristic of right-wing populism pointed out by analysts is the anti-immigration speech.
Grades
1NAPOLITANO, Marcos. Democracy, “populism” or mass politics: the “Republic of 46” (Lecture 6, part 5). To access, click on here.
*Image credits: FGV/CPDOC
By Daniel Neves Silva
Graduated in History
