Populism is on the rise. Populism didn’t come out of nowhere and suddenly. It has a long history that goes back to the late 18^th century in France, the 19^th century in the USA, the mid-20^th century in Latin America, and to its many current versions particularly in Europe and the USA.

The Early Populism: Robespierre and Jacobins

The first sign of somewhat articulated populism in history appeared with the “incorruptible” (Robespierre) and the Jacobins (see Jacobins as a precursor of Populism in reference) who promised a reign of freedom, equality and “virtue”. Inspired by the American Revolution and the enlightenment and particularly by Rousseau, the French Revolution (1989) in its early phases was the early signal of the populism movement. In his social contract, Rousseau (1712-1778) asserted that “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” He agreed with Locke (1632-1704) that the “individual should never be forced to give up his or her natural rights to a king”. Rousseau went as far as stating that people should obey the general will and “will be forced to be free”. Led by Maximilian Robespierre, the Jacobins started the first state-led “legitimized” reign of terror in history in order to “force men to be free”. The motto of Robespierre “the will of the people” transformed into “The people is sublime, but individuals are weak,” is somewhat the main foundation of modern populism. Granted, the reign of terror was short, Robespierre was executed by guillotine (July 28, 1794), but the motto continued to inspire many revolutions, many social movements, but also many tragedies, and many farces centuries later. It is unfortunate that the ideals of the French Revolution and the fundamental beliefs (government must have the freedom of all its citizens as its most fundamental objective) of J.J. Rousseau are used today by political opportunists to gain power and spread hate, racism, xenophobia, and nativism. But, this is another story. We will continue to focus on populism evolution during the 19^th and 20^th centuries.  

Populism in the USA in the 19^th Century

The populist movement in the USA appeared with the “Know-Nothings” movement in 1840. The “know-Nothings” was a xenophobic political movement opposing the massive arrivals of German and Irish Catholic immigrants. Native-born Protestants considered the new immigrants as a danger to the American culture and to its religious identity. Moreover, they are viewed as an ultimate job stealer. The know-Nothings refer to the story of the movement. The movement started as secret societies. When members were asked about their ties to these groups, members were instructed to say they “knew nothing.” In 1855 they worked on the open and formed the American Party with a program that limits immigration and a 21-year residency for citizenship. They went on to participate in the 1856 Federal Election and won 21.6%. Later, they split between anti-slavery and pro-slavery which fatally disintegrated the movement. However, nativism survived and rises every time a new wave of immigration happens.  

Late 19^th centuries far from the goals of the French Revolution and far from the “know-Nothings” nativism, a populist movement galvanized mainly by a coalition of farmers and other groups (e.g., labor, unions, miners, and marginalized people) rallied against the power of monopolies, the Gold Standard and financial establishments represented by Wall Street. Farmers who were financially squeezed by the sharp decrease of cotton prices in the South and a severe drought in the Middle West, on one hand, and by bankers charging exorbitant lending rates and railroad monopolies charging high prices for transporting products to market on the other, were far from revolutionaries. Farmers whose main complaints inspired the People’s Party asked for lower credit and lower cost of transportation of their outputs to markets and proposed nationalization of railways companies. Although the political program of the People’s Party is far from European social radical grievances, their discourse was not from the French Revolution ideals and the European radical movement.

Mary Elizabeth Lease (1850-1933), a suffrage advocate, a leader of the People’s Party, populist, author, and orator believed that monopolies are transforming people of America into “wage slaves” and believed “Wall Street” owns the country. Long before the recent “Occupy WallStreet” movement, she stated that “It is no longer a government of the people, by the people, and for the people, but a government of Wall Street, by Wall Street, and for Wall Street.”

These two populist movements continue today greatly influencing politics in the USA.

Populism in Latin America

The first movement of populism dominated Latin American politics from the 1930s to the end of the 1960s. Populist leaders gained power in Brazil with Getúlio Vargas, in Argentina with Juan Perón, and in Ecuador with José María Velasco Ibarra.

Vergas assumed power as interim president from 1930–1934, constitutional president from 1934–1937, then as a dictator from 1937–1945, and finally as a democratically elected president from 1951-1954. He distinguished himself as a nationalist, industrialist, and particularly, as a populist favoring welfare that earned him the nickname “The Father of the Poor”.

Populism reached its summit with Juan Perón who was elected president of Argentina in 1946 thanks to his mass movement “los descamisados” or “the shirtless.” He was elected President of Argentina three times, from 1946 -1955. Then from 1973 until his death in1974. He rallied the excluded masses around his main supporters, “the shirtless”, against the establishment, the corrupt riches and the self-serving elites, by promising a more prosperous future. Peronism as a populist movement is somewhat unique because it draws support from all “social fabric” with the populists at the far right and populists at the left as driving forces. Peronism still active in Argentina and represented mainly by the Justicialist Party.  Many following Argentinian presidents are considered Peronists. The last Peronist presidents are Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Kirchner.

José María Velasco Ibarra became president in 1934. He was in and out five times. He completed only once a full term (1952-1956). For the other four terms, he was removed by a military coup and reinstalled again through a military coup. His last term was 1968-1972. As an excellent orator, Velasco Ibarra can captivate people with eloquence, becoming a leader of the masses from the left and the right without any clear political program. His rhetoric is not significantly different from Vergas and Perón. He emphasized moral reform and call the honest common people to rise against the corrupt and selfish oligarchy. 

During the 1990s, several Latin Americans countries were experiencing severe economic crises. A second populist movement emerged. Populists seized the opportunity and again like in the first movement from the 1930’s to the 1960’s, they blamed the governing elites and the bad governance. Contrary to the first populist movements from 1930’s to 1960’s, however, they didn’t blame foreign powers. Once they seized the power elected leaders in Argentina, Peru, and Brazil tried economic liberalism supported by the IMF and the World Bank. They succeeded somewhat to foster growth and stabilize the economy. Unfortunately, it didn’t last long and the situation worsened during the 21^st century.

The third and maybe the last populist movement began early 21^st century until today. The rhetoric of the first populist movement came back heavily with some difference. The blame went to foreign powers (read the USA) and corrupt elites. The difference with the first movement is political orientation. It is clearly oriented toward the left with the explicitly socialist program and against the capitalist system and free market. Leaders of this movement such as Ortega in Nicaragua (followers are known as Sandinistas), Morales in Bolivia (followers are known as Masistas), and Chávez (succeeded by his loyalist Maduro) in Venezuela (Chavez’s followers call themselves Chavistas) are engaged in a political battle to help the people gain their sovereignty through the election of constituent assemblies to write new constitutions that could be ratified by referendums. One can characterize the actual tragedy of Venezuela as a direct consequence of changing the constitution to fit the populism and the rhetoric of Chávez.

Modern Populism: Past Glory and Nativism Drives Current Populism

Modern Populism in the USA: Modern populism in the USA is carrying a long-standing of American populism: left-wing populism and right-wing populism. Sanders’srhetoric fits somewhat the late 19^th century rhetoric of the left. The rhetoric of the establishment around President Trump fits also a kind of American populism that goes back to the 1840 “Know-nothings” movement and the American Party with some traces in the Huey Long’s Share Our Wealth movement in Louisiana to the 1930s populist movement. “Make America great again” is the actual mantra of the modern American populist.

Modern Populism in Europe:  The wave of populism is spreading in many European democracies. During the last decades, populist parties in Western Europe and Eastern are increasingly popular. Led by authoritarian leaders, they are gaining a good percentage of the popular vote and aspiring to gain or hold power. They succeed to gain power in Greece, Hungary, and Italy (a coalition of right-wing and left-wing). Populist’s political party are very active and growing in Germany, Switzerland, Bulgaria, and Britain.

Modern populists in Britain are represented by Margaret Thatcher, Nigel Farage, and David Owen. All three gleaned their themes and rhetoric from the American populism and the glory of the Victorian past. For example, former Prime Minister Thatcher militancy tended to bring-up back the “vigorous virtues of her Hometown Grantham” on the one hand and the “Victorian values” on the other. The combination of the “vigorous virtues” of heartland people combined with the glorious “values” of the past constitute the foundation of the current populism which is a mix of nationalism, nativism, and provincialism. The motto (of the Brexiteers) is “Take back control”.

Modern populism in France is refers to the current “Rassemblement National” (RN) which evolved from the Front National created by Jean Marie Le Pen the father Marine Le Pen. The rebranded “Rassemblement National” or National Rally is led by Marine Le Pen. She is a resolute anti-globalization, somewhat anti-euro, anti-immigrants (cultural nativism), and protectionist. The RN social and economic positioning is complex. The party leans toward egalitarianism, supporting social welfare programs and demand-side economics. Marine Le Pen is an enthusiast and firm supporter of the Brexit. She is particularly a real fighter to own the French past.

The Unescapable Trap: The Lesson from Latin America Populism

What can we learn from Latin America Populism? Populists’ aim is to gain legitimacy through the support of the masses, whereas they are authoritarian and prefer top-down control. The goal of the mass movement (right or left) is to increase and protect their personal power, and not to fundamentally change the governance mechanism system.

Populism experiences, particularly, in Latin America but also in many African Nations, Arab World and part of Asia show that populists build and maintain their power by holding together diverse political coalitions. To succeed, they tend to develop very expensive social welfare programs, nationalize key economic sectors, and raise tariffs. Moreover, they developed from the 1950s until 1970s a new economic development that seek of replacing foreign goods particularly machineries and automotive components by native industry. This thinking was developed and supported by well and respected economists such as Hans Singer, Raul Prebisch, and Celso Furtado is popularized under “Import Substitution Industrialization (ISI).” Unfortunately, this promising model didn’t deliver the desired economic growth and was abandoned by the 1980s. The resulting of the welfare largess without real growth and without productivity improvement led to high inflation, businesses scaling back investments, accumulated public debts, and economic crises follow. This story has played out in Vargas’s Brazil, Chavez’s Venezuela, and Perón’s and Kirchner’s Argentina. The story has played out also, in Nasser’s Egypt, Indira Gandhi’s India, in Iran, and somewhat in Islamic populism countries such as Turkey.

Summing-up: Populism did not come out of nowhere and suddenly. It has a long history that goes back to the French Revolution, late 19^th century in the USA when a coalition of farmers, miners, and a marginalized fringe of population rallied against transportation monopolies and the rising power of finance establishment. Later in the 1930s and mid-20^th century, it developed in Latin America with the Peronism in Argentina as its main symbol. The 1920s and 1930s populism in Germany and to a lesser degree in Italy and Japan produced the worst crime in the long history of humankind. Globalization, technology progress, population growth, and climate change are on the verge to trigger the 21^st populist movement that is not presaging very well.