精英与民粹主义:委内瑞拉和厄瓜多尔的案例

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Benedicte Bull, F. Sanchez
{"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}
引用次数: 6

摘要

尽管对民粹主义进行了大量研究,但除了展示以民粹主义运动和领导人为特征的话语的反精英主义外,很少有人讨论民粹主义与不同类型精英之间的关系。这篇文章认为,与精英的关系对于理解民粹主义政权是如何出现、获得权力和维持自己至关重要。通过比较委内瑞拉的雨果·查韦斯和厄瓜多尔的拉斐尔·科雷亚,我们表明,他们不仅仅是两位通过民主渠道获得权力的权威领导人。他们与民粹主义领导人有着深刻的相似之处,他们的反精英话语是二元的。他们之间的一个区别是,查韦斯在与传统精英对抗后强调并成功地建立了替代精英,而科雷亚没有。这是解释拉斐尔·科雷亚的“公民革命”崩溃的一部分,而查韦斯主义在尼古拉斯·马杜罗的领导下幸存下来,并日益成为一种权威形式。这一比较有助于开辟一个研究精英以及所有阴影的民粹主义领导人下经济和政治权力集中的领域,这可能丰富民粹主义的研究。他总结了对民粹主义的多种研究,除了解释其特点的话语反精英主义外,很少谈到不同类型的精英与民粹主义运动和领导人的联系。出于这个原因,本文在这个问题上进行了大量的研究,提出分析民粹主义者与精英的关系类型对于了解他们是如何演变、到达和保持权力(或不)至关重要。他们比较了委内瑞拉的雨果·查韦斯和厄瓜多尔的拉斐尔·科雷亚政府,以表明他们不仅是通过民主渠道上台的两位专制领导人,而且是通过摩尼教演讲上台的民粹主义总统,然后展示他们与精英的不同关系策略。虽然查韦斯在与先前存在的精英发生正面冲突后,制定了一项深思熟虑和成功的战略来建设替代精英,但科雷亚在这方面失败了,这在很大程度上解释了为什么当科雷亚的“公民革命”崩溃时,查韦斯主义在马杜罗的领导下通过一场日益专制的政治运动得以生存。对这两种情况的研究都有助于表明,对精英的研究如何丰富民粹主义理论,因为了解精英的变化为研究各种民粹主义领导人下经济和政治权力的集中开辟了一个领域。关键词:精英;民粹主义;委内瑞拉;厄瓜多尔;雨果·查韦斯;拉斐尔·科雷亚
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Iberoamericana - Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies
Iberoamericana - Nordic Journal of Latin American and Caribbean Studies Arts and Humanities-Arts and Humanities (all)
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1
审稿时长
16 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信