Populism and Redistribution in Latin America. Conceptualizing a Threshold of Acceptance

Populism cannot be defined by an ideology or a set of policies, but rather by a style of governing. In Latin America, a longstanding tradition of populism has existed, which has adopted various discourses and policies, and has allied with different power-based sectors. However, an important strand of that tradition has consisted in movements and leaders that present themselves as outsider leftist political options, and argue that the ordinary operation of democracy inhibits the promotion of excluded sectors to the benefit of oligarchic elites. This type of Latin American populism posits a difficult challenge to liberal and social democrats committed to the value of equality. While populism may be criticized for its threats to pluralism, interest representation, checks and balances, and civil and political rights, the question remains whether it is worth defending for the redistribution and social incorporation that it allegedly delivers. In this paper we address this challenge by placing this form of populism's arguments in the best possible light. We engage with the normative and positive question of whether and under what conditions a political arrangement that weakens some democratic traits for the purpose of promoting redistribution can be justified. We posit that, if populism wishes to be faithful to the democratic pedigree that it claims to have, it should tie its own hands by respecting certain conditions. As long as those conditions are met, it may be admissible for some democratic rules to be relaxed in order to achieve greater equality. Only by doing this would populism be true to its promise of strengthening democracy via social incorporation. Those conditions are thus the threshold of acceptance of populist redistributive projects. Very few populist governments, if any, comply with them