This week topic is about the term populism and how political figures take advantage of this method to gain popularity among people. Political figures always try to express that they are same as other ordinary people and they are coming from an average social group. This way they are able to gain the trust of majority of average people and become popular (win elections).
This method is widely used by politicians in both present and the past and it has some pros and cons. Regarding its pros, it would most probably unite the people in the society and prepare them for a change. For instance, Mexican president Cárdenas and Argentine President Perón used this method to establish a relationship of trust between the government and the people which gave hope to the entire Latin American community. However, on the other hand, this might be used to promote false claims and mislead a nation for personal gain.
Furthermore as it is mentioned, populists were not just defined by a political style; they came of age in an era of significant social and technological change. These technological innovations transformed what it was to be a politician, and what it was to be a member of the crowd. In the radio age the act of listening to the leader still connected the listener to power, but instead of something that was individually empowering, it made the crowd into a people.
Also, another interesting fact about this week material was the improving role of women in Latin American society during that era. For instance, the role of the president Peron’s wife Eva Duarte. Prior to that time period it was very uncommon for women to hold political roles, however, she managed to overcome this barrier.
It is interesting to see how the situation in South America has changed over the years.
I also felt the same way as you did. Peron’s wife ‘Evita’, was not only gaining popularity for having a populist vision, but she took political roles on behalf of the women to promote feminism. I think that’s one reason why Kirchner admired Evita.
Like you, I agree that they are benefits and disadvantages to populism. It helped create a sense of unity in countries that were previously very segregated and gave the oppressed a sense of hope that things would get better for them in the future. Unfortunately, since within the people, there will always be some disagreement in what they want for the country and how they want change to come about, it’sessentially impossibe for a populist leader to please everyone. Thisjust tends to lead to the people dividing and becoming segregated again.
Populism is interesting, as I appreciate that it looks to a group of people with the intention of unity. However, it’s tough to construe whether or not populism has the opportunity to thrive. I think populism functions well within smaller populations, whilst with larger groups or populations, there’s a greater chance for division and separation among groups of people.
I liked that you brought up populisms pros and cons. It makes me wonder if, overall, populism has done more harm or good in this world.