With Nicolás Maduro’s political weakening and the electoral victories of conservative parties in several Latin American countries, Alberto Ruiz-Méndez asks whether these developments signal the end of populism's wild years. Here, he examines what the Latin American experience reveals about populism's limits

The wild years of populism

The most recent populist wave in Latin America, marked by Hugo Chávez’s anti-American, anti-globalisation, and anti-neoliberal rhetoric, began in the early twenty-first century. From Venezuela, this discourse spread across Latin America, reshaping political competition in Mexico, Bolivia, Ecuador, Argentina, and Brazil.

Yet populism’s impact has extended far beyond electoral victories. Its redistributive promises, nationalist appeals, and polarising rhetoric have helped define the political ethos of our time. Populism has influenced not only political parties but public debate more broadly.

In everyday politics, populism has generated a whirlwind of demands, accusations, and controversies. In academic circles, it has produced ambitious defences, competing definitions, heterogeneous theoretical approaches, and empirical evidence mobilised in support and in critique.

Given its theoretical and practical consequences during the first quarter of this century – in Latin America and globally – it is no exaggeration to describe this period as the wild years of populism.

The eye of the storm

At the heart of this populist maelstrom lies a persistent debate about its relationship with democracy. For some, populism represents a direct threat to liberal democratic institutions. For others, it expresses the promise of inclusion for historically marginalised groups while exposing the fragility of representative systems.

Populism’s impact on democracy may be immediate. Its consequences, however, tend to consolidate over the long term

Although the controversy is often framed in stark terms, the Latin American experience suggests a more complex dynamic. Whether operating as a government or as a social movement, populism’s impact on democracy may be immediate. Its consequences, however, tend to consolidate over the long term.

The intensity of contemporary debates indicates that we shouldn't treat populism as a mere anomaly; something that would disappear if democracy simply ‘worked well’. Rather, it appears as a recurring political grammar, one that re-emerges during periods of social rupture and institutional distrust.

Given its overwhelming presence and polarising character, visible in university classrooms and in public discourse, it seems necessary to stand in the eye of the populist storm and assess its record. We must look not only at populism's achievements, but at the mistakes that have led populist leaders and policies towards political dead ends.

From Latin America to the world

What have been the virtues of Latin American populism?

Bolivia offers a revealing case. Its left-wing populist government emphasised a social division based on social class. As Maurits Meijers writes about European populism, the government has economically excluded ordinary citizens to benefit a wealthy and corrupt elite. In this sense, populism in Bolivia promoted the symbolic and political inclusion of historically marginalised sectors, one of its most significant virtues. It gave institutional expression to long-repressed identities and demands.

Yet it also exposed a central weakness of contemporary populism: excessive dependence on a single leader and the difficulty of distinguishing between personalistic projects and durable democratic institutions. When leadership becomes indispensable, democratic consolidation becomes fragile.

Mexico presents a different variation. There, populism has operated within certain formal democratic boundaries, including the observance of presidential succession. However, political decisions framed through the moral construction of a ‘good people’ and their ‘enemies’ demonstrated that, even when populism does not dismantle democracy outright, it can normalise democratic erosion.

Populism deepens polarisation and strains relations between government, civil society, autonomous institutions, and the press

Populism deepens polarisation and strains relations between government, civil society, autonomous institutions, and the press. In doing so, it reshapes democratic practice from within. As Lone Sorensen argues, populist discourse can delegitimise democracy and its adversaries by adapting to the context and the dynamics of contemporary media.

Venezuela remains the archetypal case. Populism in that country began as a project of ‘participatory democracy’ that promised to transform existing institutions. It gradually evolved, however, into a progressive concentration of power.

The appeal to the people, initially framed as democratic renewal, became a mechanism of authoritarian survival. In this trajectory, the promise of radical inclusion ultimately coexisted with institutional weakening and democratic backsliding.

The aftermath

The Latin American experience suggests that populism can challenge democratic complacency. This is because, as Marie-Isabel Theuwis has written, populist citizens are dissatisfied democrats who, through populist parties, promote and articulate powerful demands for equality. However, once in government, they become trapped in their own logic.

Populism may leave existing structures largely intact while masking them with moralising rhetoric. It may reveal its inability to create plural political spaces for those it claims to represent.

Populist parties promote and articulate powerful demands for equality. Once in government, however, they become trapped in their own logic

To assess populism’s relationship with democracy, we must confront at least three questions. First, why have certain social sectors felt persistently neglected by representative institutions? Second, how does populist discourse foster polarisation and narrow the space for democratic dialogue? Third, which institutional mechanisms do populist governments employ to consolidate power?

One way to answer these questions is to follow the example of Mattia Zulianello's PopulisTree. Tracing the common lines of thought and action of Latin American populisms might offer greater clarity about their diversity but, above all, their contradictions.

Because if there is one lesson from these turbulent years, it is that populism reflects deeper political crises. It does not stand outside them. The pressing question is no longer whether populism is democratic or anti-democratic in the abstract. It is whether populism can renew democracy without exhausting its own governing promise – or whether it has already reached the limits of its political logic.

No.105 in a Loop series on the 🔮 Future of Populism