Populism in Argentina, Chile, and Mexico.

Populism for starters is belief that the people have the power and their right to have control over their own government rather than allowing a small group of political leaders to lead. To break that down even more, populism can be considered a political movement which has the support of the mass of the urban and working class population but it does not result from groups or organization that seek to control the people.

Populism in Argentina can be looked at in many ways but for the purpose of this essay, two characteristics will be discussed: urban and multiclass. In Argentina, urbanization was mostly seen in Buenos Aires. Also in Argentina, cattle barons prohibited people from having power. To elaborate on what a cattle baron is, it is a term to describe a local businessman and landowner who possessed a great power or influenced through the operation of a large ranch with many cattle. To break it down to even simpler terms, because they owned the land and they were a businessman they possessed power. Why do I bring up someone who is not for the people having power? Because I want to show that there are politicians and businessmen who want to have the control over the money and the people, whereas the people would do what is best for themselves. The next form of populism in Argentina that I want to look at is multiclass. Multiclass typically included students, working class families, political or economically inactive citizens to name a few, but most of the people consisted of workers and lower middle class people, making up the masses (Populism and Its Legacies in Argentina). As far as when it came to the church and its support of populism it can be looked at from when Juan Perón was in play. There were many things that the church agreed on with Perón; he was a supporter of the poor and was not as favorable towards the wealthy. He wanted the support of the masses because that was where it mattered. The Church supported him in his first term but was against him in his second term (Populism in Argentina).

Throughout the years, Chile’s government has been that of dealing with military rule and civil war. The problem with populism in Chile is that after hyperurbanization happened, the people, the masses, were not correctly represented in congress. The people of Chile were not represented and they did not act in the way that gave people the power. As far as whether the church helped or hurt populist when it came to Chile, I think when a Christian-Democratic, Radomiro Tomic, held a campaign, there was hopefulness to have the people represented, but do to congress’s actions his opponent won, which allowed misrepresentation of the people to continue (Hellinger, 2015).

Mexico had to reduce the power of populist to prove that they were ready for “integration”. There was populist who opposed PRI for ideological reasons, for example, nationalism, and for more practical reasons, for example, the need to protect local jobs. Once the power of the populist was reduced it allowed the government to be more of an authoritarian government. The shift went from allowing more power of the people and is marked as an indefinite political tenure (Hellinger, 2015).

What this all leads to, in my opinion is that for countries like Argentina, Chile, and Mexico, the power is not to the people, although there have been supporters of populism, the leaders or congress makes the power go to the person who will do the best for the government, not the people.

A single golf clap? Or a long standing ovation?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.