Miraculous Metamorphoses: The Neoliberalisation of Latin American Populism

Latin American Politics and Society, Spring 2003 by Sanchez, Omar

Demmers, J. (Jolle], A.[Alex] E. Fernandez Jilberto, and B. [Barbara] Hegenboom, eds. Miraculous Metamorphoses: The Neoliberalisation of Latin American Populism. London: Zed Books, 2001. Tables, figures, abbreviations, index, 208 pp.; cloth $65, paperback $27.50.

The avowed purpose of this collective study is to "analyze the contemporary history of Latin American populism" so that it "will contribute to the understanding of current changes [toward neopopulism]" (p. 17). Yet the endeavor is fatally hampered because the editors do not settle on a definition of populism in the introductory chapter that provides the basis for the subsequent case study material.

Four definitions of populism permeating the scholarly literature are given. Rudiger Dornbush and Sebastian Edwards have postulated populism to be an approach to economics that seeks redistribution via macroeconomic tools, which invariably ends up hurting those groups it is meant to help. Robert Kaufman and Barbara Stallings have defined it as a set of economic policies designed to achieve specific political goals; namely the mobilization of organized labor support and the lower middle class and the isolation of the rural oligarchy and large-scale industrial elites. At least two other conceptualizations of this slippery concept have centered more heavily on politics proper. Paul Drake defines populism as a political strategy that draws on a heterogenous coalition aimed at the working class (but including sectors of the middle class) and that responds to underdevelopment with state activism. Finally, Kurt Weyland understands this term as a political strategy involving a leader who appeals directly to the masses in a quasi-personal manner and bypasses institutions.

These are all briefly laid out in the introduction to this book. But which of these definitions, if any, provides guidance for the chapters that follow? The reader is never told-and apparently neither were the individual contributors. The absence of a consistent set of questions that are thoroughly and methodically addressed by the individual country studies-as they should be, for the sake of analytical unity and clarityis conspicuous. There is also a lack of consistency in the time periods analyzed across countries. The Brazilian chapter deals exclusively with the Cardoso administration (1994-present); the Chilean account begins with the Pinochet coup (1973); while the study of Argentina begins its fairly detailed chronological narrative all the way back in the 1930s. Needless to say, this makes it difficult to draw analytical parallels across space. If, as the editors contend, populism was "dealt a heavy blow by the 1980s debt crisis," then the study perhaps should have focused (consistently) on a period from the 1970s to the present.

If the editors do not spell out their own understanding of populism, they are similarly unclear as to what they mean by neopopulism, the endproduct of the metamorphosis. This adds definitional ambiguity: neopopulists differed substantially from "classic" populists in that they appealed directly to the huge informal sector and unorganized urban and rural poor, instead of the "traditional" populist sector such as urban workers and lower middle classes .... In addition, neopopulists . . . adapted populism to the severe economic constraints of the late 1980s and 1990s. They showed that neoliberal policies did not preclude continued populist policies. (p. 11)

This is as close as the introduction gets to defining neopopulism. Perhaps unsurprisingly, therefore, the book tells us that politicians as different in their political ideas, styles, and policies as Mexico's Luis Echevarria, Peru's Alan Garcia, Argentina's Raul Alfonsin, and Brazil's Jose Sarney are all neopopulists. To be sure, a term that is elastic enough to comprise these four figures is of doubtful analytical value.

Most collaborative studies united by a common theme usually include a final chapter that draws general conclusions and common threads from the individual cases; it is from such an analytical effort that many collaborative scholarly works draw much of their intellectual strength. Such a chapter is, unfortunately, missing from this work. It should have been a clear requisite if the volume were successfully to "provide a rich and thorough account of the changing nature of Latin American populism in the era of neoliberalism" (p. 13). At best, some of the chapters provide a few interesting political vignettes. Generally absent are the questions the book ought to address in documenting and exploring populism's alleged survival in the neoliberal age, such as, how have traditionally populist parties articulated the cause of redistribution in keeping with responsible macroeconomic management? Which elements of economic policy have they discarded and which have they added to their arsenal, and why? Concerning political style, what has changed and why? Has the rhetoric of these parties changed, and if so, to what extent? To answer these and similar important questions systematically, each contributor would have had to follow the evolution, political rhetoric, and economic policies (advocated as an opposition party or applied while in government) of a single, traditionally populist party. Instead, most chapters read like general political development narratives, without a clear direction. In fairness, it should be noted that only the chapter on the Chilean Socialist Party and the one on Mexico's PRI do come close to following this structure.