Understanding the Politics of Latin America's Plural Lefts (Chávez/Lula): social democracy, populism and convergence on the path to a post-neoliberal world

Abstract

This article explores the academic and public debate on the politics of Latin America's twenty-first century turn towards the left. It rejects dichotomous categorisations of 'social democratic' and 'populist' lefts as a disciplinary move by neoliberals that appeals to entrenched liberal predispositions. It suggests that such classificatory taxonomies are directly linked to an impoverished notion of the political, in which a politics of exalted expertise and enlightenment, based on reason, rationality and objectivity is juxtaposed against a lesser sphere of emotion, passion and 'personalism'. This underlying dualism, which permeates academic disciplines and crosses lines of ideology, tracks established markers of hierarchical distinction in societies profoundly divided along multiple lines of class and cultural capital. This is explored through an analysis of the discourse of Cha´vez vis-a-vis Lula, while offering an appreciation of the subaltern origin of Lula's distinctive style of political leadership, from trade unionism to the presidency, based upon the creation of spaces of convergence.

Latin America's Left Turns: beyond good and bad

“…As John French argues, 'the juxtaposition of the ''social democratic'' against the ''populist'' originated as a disciplinary move by neoliberals'. 24 It is part of an effort to bolster the claim that markets and democracy go hand-in-hand, that they are mutually reinforcing, and that progress involves a convergence of economic and political liberalism. The distinction between 'bad' populists and 'good' social democrats is designed to drive home the case that 'populists' are illiberal and anti-market; while 'social democrats' respect markets and regulate them through representative institutions.…”

Rethinking the Politics of the Shift Left in Latin America: Towards a Relational Approach

“…Some features of populism are clearly visible in the way in which Hugo Chávez ruled in Venezuela from 1998, including his charismatic style of leadership and his appeal to the people against traditional elites (Ellner, ). But the category is then stretched to cases beyond Venezuela, making the analysis unclear by lumping together eclectic experiences under the same conceptual banner (French, : 352). The role of organised, autonomous, indigenous social movements in bringing the Left to power in Bolivia and Ecuador challenges definitions of populist movements as informal, disorganised electoral vehicles, dominated by charismatic leaders (Collins, ).…”

Managing Diversity in Postneoliberal Ecuador

“…Ecuador is one among several countries in Latin America in which a government with a platform that rejects neoliberalism has been elected in the last decade (Cameron, and Hershberg ; de la Torre ; French ; Oxhorn ; Weyland ). These governments self‐identify as leftist, and in some cases as socialist.…”