{"title":"精英与民粹主义:委内瑞拉和厄瓜多尔的案例","authors":"Benedicte Bull, F. Sanchez","doi":"10.16993/iberoamericana.504","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In spite of the large number of studies of populism, few have discussed the relationship between populism and different types of elites, apart from showing the antielitism of the discourse that characterizes populist movements and leaders. This article argues that the relationship to elites is crucial to understand how populist regimes emerge, gain power and sustain themselves. Comparing Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Rafael Correa of Ecuador, we show that they were not simply two authoritarian leaders that gained power through democratic channels. They had profound similarities as populist leaders with a maniquean anti-elitist discourse. One difference between them was that Chavez emphasized and succeeded with, his construction of alternative elites after his confrontation with traditional, elites, while Correa did not. This is part of the explanation for why the “Citizens Revolution” of Rafael Correa collapsed, while chavismo has survived and turned increasingly authoritarian form under the leadership of Nicolas Maduro. The comparison serves to open a field of study of elites and the concentration of economic and political power under populist leaders of all shadows, that may enrich the study of populism. Resumen La multiplicidad de estudios sobre el populismo, mas alla explicar el antielitismo discursivo que lo caracteriza, dicen poco sobre los vinculos que tienen los distintos tipos de elites con los movimientos y lideres populistas. Por ello, abundando en el tema, este articulo plantea que el analisis del tipo de relacion de los populistas con las elites es crucial para comprender como evolucionan, llegan y permanecen -o no- en el poder. Se comparan los gobiernos de Hugo Chavez en Venezuela y Rafael Correa en Ecuador, para mostrar que no eran simplemente dos lideres autoritarios llegados al poder por canales democraticos, sino presidentes populistas con un discurso maniqueo, para despues mostrar sus distintas estrategias de relacion con las elites. Mientras Chavez tuvo una estrategia deliberada y exitosa de construccion de elites alternativas -luego de su choque frontal con las preexistentes- Correa fracasa en esa dimension, lo que explica en gran parte que, mientras la “Revolucion Ciudadana” de Correa se derrumbo, el chavismo sobrevive, a traves de un movimiento politico cada vez mas autoritario bajo el liderazgo de Maduro. El estudios de ambos casos sirve para mostrar, como el estudio de las elites enriquece la teoria populista pues, entender el cambio de elites abre un campo al estudio de la concentracion del poder economico y politico bajo lideres populistas de todo tipo. Palabras clave: elites; populismo; Venezuela; Ecuador; Hugo Chavez; Rafael Correa","PeriodicalId":36325,"journal":{"name":"Iberoamericana - Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-12-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Élites y populistas: los casos de Venezuela y Ecuador\",\"authors\":\"Benedicte Bull, F. Sanchez\",\"doi\":\"10.16993/iberoamericana.504\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In spite of the large number of studies of populism, few have discussed the relationship between populism and different types of elites, apart from showing the antielitism of the discourse that characterizes populist movements and leaders. This article argues that the relationship to elites is crucial to understand how populist regimes emerge, gain power and sustain themselves. Comparing Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Rafael Correa of Ecuador, we show that they were not simply two authoritarian leaders that gained power through democratic channels. They had profound similarities as populist leaders with a maniquean anti-elitist discourse. One difference between them was that Chavez emphasized and succeeded with, his construction of alternative elites after his confrontation with traditional, elites, while Correa did not. This is part of the explanation for why the “Citizens Revolution” of Rafael Correa collapsed, while chavismo has survived and turned increasingly authoritarian form under the leadership of Nicolas Maduro. The comparison serves to open a field of study of elites and the concentration of economic and political power under populist leaders of all shadows, that may enrich the study of populism. Resumen La multiplicidad de estudios sobre el populismo, mas alla explicar el antielitismo discursivo que lo caracteriza, dicen poco sobre los vinculos que tienen los distintos tipos de elites con los movimientos y lideres populistas. Por ello, abundando en el tema, este articulo plantea que el analisis del tipo de relacion de los populistas con las elites es crucial para comprender como evolucionan, llegan y permanecen -o no- en el poder. Se comparan los gobiernos de Hugo Chavez en Venezuela y Rafael Correa en Ecuador, para mostrar que no eran simplemente dos lideres autoritarios llegados al poder por canales democraticos, sino presidentes populistas con un discurso maniqueo, para despues mostrar sus distintas estrategias de relacion con las elites. Mientras Chavez tuvo una estrategia deliberada y exitosa de construccion de elites alternativas -luego de su choque frontal con las preexistentes- Correa fracasa en esa dimension, lo que explica en gran parte que, mientras la “Revolucion Ciudadana” de Correa se derrumbo, el chavismo sobrevive, a traves de un movimiento politico cada vez mas autoritario bajo el liderazgo de Maduro. El estudios de ambos casos sirve para mostrar, como el estudio de las elites enriquece la teoria populista pues, entender el cambio de elites abre un campo al estudio de la concentracion del poder economico y politico bajo lideres populistas de todo tipo. Palabras clave: elites; populismo; Venezuela; Ecuador; Hugo Chavez; Rafael Correa\",\"PeriodicalId\":36325,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Iberoamericana - Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2020-12-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Iberoamericana - Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.16993/iberoamericana.504\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Iberoamericana - Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.16993/iberoamericana.504","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
Élites y populistas: los casos de Venezuela y Ecuador
In spite of the large number of studies of populism, few have discussed the relationship between populism and different types of elites, apart from showing the antielitism of the discourse that characterizes populist movements and leaders. This article argues that the relationship to elites is crucial to understand how populist regimes emerge, gain power and sustain themselves. Comparing Hugo Chavez of Venezuela and Rafael Correa of Ecuador, we show that they were not simply two authoritarian leaders that gained power through democratic channels. They had profound similarities as populist leaders with a maniquean anti-elitist discourse. One difference between them was that Chavez emphasized and succeeded with, his construction of alternative elites after his confrontation with traditional, elites, while Correa did not. This is part of the explanation for why the “Citizens Revolution” of Rafael Correa collapsed, while chavismo has survived and turned increasingly authoritarian form under the leadership of Nicolas Maduro. The comparison serves to open a field of study of elites and the concentration of economic and political power under populist leaders of all shadows, that may enrich the study of populism. Resumen La multiplicidad de estudios sobre el populismo, mas alla explicar el antielitismo discursivo que lo caracteriza, dicen poco sobre los vinculos que tienen los distintos tipos de elites con los movimientos y lideres populistas. Por ello, abundando en el tema, este articulo plantea que el analisis del tipo de relacion de los populistas con las elites es crucial para comprender como evolucionan, llegan y permanecen -o no- en el poder. Se comparan los gobiernos de Hugo Chavez en Venezuela y Rafael Correa en Ecuador, para mostrar que no eran simplemente dos lideres autoritarios llegados al poder por canales democraticos, sino presidentes populistas con un discurso maniqueo, para despues mostrar sus distintas estrategias de relacion con las elites. Mientras Chavez tuvo una estrategia deliberada y exitosa de construccion de elites alternativas -luego de su choque frontal con las preexistentes- Correa fracasa en esa dimension, lo que explica en gran parte que, mientras la “Revolucion Ciudadana” de Correa se derrumbo, el chavismo sobrevive, a traves de un movimiento politico cada vez mas autoritario bajo el liderazgo de Maduro. El estudios de ambos casos sirve para mostrar, como el estudio de las elites enriquece la teoria populista pues, entender el cambio de elites abre un campo al estudio de la concentracion del poder economico y politico bajo lideres populistas de todo tipo. Palabras clave: elites; populismo; Venezuela; Ecuador; Hugo Chavez; Rafael Correa