By Javier Szulman

A new way of doing politics, which many call ‘populism’, took hold in Argentina during the last century. But ‘populism’ is a flawed word that may lead to misunderstandings. Populist leaders have successfully shielded their followers against criticism. They no longer associate it with demagogy. They have been persuaded that the word populism comes from being ‘popular’, which would imply there is a large crowd and that, in turn, would imply there is a majority. So, by majority rule, whatever they choose is democratic. As a consequence, whoever is labeled as a populist proudly replies "yes, I am the very personification of democracy."

​

This false association is based on fallacies, logically incorrect reasonings which have a psychological intention to persuade. They are attractive because they unconsciously appeal to passions and preconceptions we already hold and the faulty reasoning is concealed even before we can process it. We have been overridden by prejudice. We have fallen prey to manipulative mechanisms.

​

It is incorrect to link ‘populism’ with ‘popular’ because the concept does not refer to whether there are many who support it. It refers to the form in which the electorate is affected when someone appeals to its animal spirits, the thinking of a horde, which is an irrational way of reacting. It may be a response against something unknown that causes fear or an artificial archetype which was purposefully built to become an object of hatred. In times of chaos and irrationality, when fears  grow, it is easier to manipulate people.

​

Even if populism actually builds a majority either in Congress or within the electorate, it continues to clash with Democracy. Populist leaders seek to induce people to believe that, once they have been voted, they will forever represent the preferences and desires of their voters -being the only valid interpreters of it-. Therefore, public debate is no longer required and criticism ceases to be allowed. Accountability, transparency, oversight and control are rejected. But blocking debate and criticism is not a democratic attitude. Neither is an unempowered people who can no longer supervise their public officials. Populist leaders illegitimately seizes power from the people.

​

We should remember that, even though they usually go together, the majority rule and constitutional democracy are not equivalent. In Ancient Greece, a majority voted in Athens to annihilate all males from Mytilene and to enslave women and children. Even though they recanted later on -only based on utilitarian reasons- the vote did take place. Now, could anyone today consider such a vote to be democratic? Of course we would all reject it outright: it is not democratic in today's terms, even though a majority rule was applied. A constitutional democracy has intrinsic values which include the respect for life as well as civil and political rights. These values of a constitutional democracy are protected when we -truly- defend the Constitution, that is to say, to place checks and balances to power -and rulers, of course-. That is the way to prevent arbitrary decisions. The Constitution is set to prevent rulers from abusing their power.

​

Populist leaders’ greatest enemy is the Constitution. So, they have a recurring intention to reform it -or to reinterpret it-. While populist leaders claim to represent an alleged majority, they actually try to seize the power from them. We should always bear in mind that absolute power is not delegated to elected representatives. They are only temporarily occupying an office and they continue to be accountable. 

​

When drafting the Argentine Constitution, one of the intentions of the 1853 constituents was to prevent the voters -a population that was not used to a free, democratic and republican life- from electing a despot to rule the country. Those were not unfounded concerns. Actually, it had already happened. Years before, the Buenos Aires Congress had voted to unify the three branches of government into just one and to cede all the power to just one man: Juan Manuel de Rosas. Thus, Rosas became a despot, enshrined into his new role by a legal vote. He instituted State terrorism through an independent organization called ‘La Mazorca’. The constituents of 1853 -when they referred to those prior congressmen who had willingly ceded their power to the Executive-, called them vile traitors to the motherland.

​

Populism, which is demagogy with a tyrannical intent, strives to erect a despotic government that persuades people that being subdued and oppressed is actually good for them. It may only happen when a mental prison is erected, that is, an impossibility to analyze the world in a critical and independent way. It's not an invariable situation. People retain their control. What they lack is sufficient courage to confront reality. They lack the courage to question, particularly to question themselves. They lack the courage to be humble and listen to other perspectives. They lack the courage to debate rationally and without shouting. They lack the courage to overcome their own prejudices and change their minds if necessary. They lack the courage to supervise elected officials. If such mental prison is not overcome, then our reality becomes a physical prison. That's what despotism is all about. Demagogues with an intent to become tyrants will masquerade as the liberators of the people when, in fact, they are the ones who are placing the chains.

​

Some people believe that tyranny is only related to a specific political side and that it is imposed abruptly with soldiers marching in the streets. But tyranny may be disguised as either a false right or a false left -according to their convenience-. Moreover, tyranny can be imposed gradually -which is usually imperceptible to all those who remain inattentive-. It seeks to generate a conducive environment which could foster people to believe that dismantling the checks and balances, modifying -or reinterpreting in their own terms- the Constitution and running over the independent institutions would benefit their economic well-being. In times of economic hardship, these misconceptions are naively accepted.

​

Argentina is a country in which presidents often rule by decree, where the independence of institutions is questioned, where judges and prosecutors have party affiliations and where congressmen are indirectly chosen by their constituencies because they were previously handpicked by a party leader who formed a unified list and decided whether they would be higher up in the list -with more chances of being elected- or further down. Elected congressmen  owe obedience to the party leader that placed them in an appropriate order within the list. Within this scenario, it is required a great amount of a cooperative attitude and good will to respect the boundaries set by independent institutions, as well as to perform dialogues across the aisle, in order to remain within the scope of a constitutional democracy. When that positive attitude fades away, we enter the dawn of tyranny. That is when all three branches of power are delegated to the rising leader of the moment, even if it remains covered-up behind some formalities.

​

‘Populist leaders’ is a flawed term. We should call them for what they truly are: demagogues with a tyrannical intent, usurpers of the power of the people. Despots.