Élites y populistaslos casos de Venezuela y Ecuador

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 Chávez 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.