Populism and Democracy

Abstract

In light of the ongoing resilience of populism in Ecuadorian politics, it should come as no surprise that both political elites and social scientists there have long debated the relationship between populism and democracy (Burbano and de la Torre, 1989; Paz y Mifio, 1992). Modernizing elites have argued that populism's rhetoric and style of political mobilization pose dangers to democratic institutions. They have constructed populist subjects as the Other-the negation of the modern and rational political subjects that they aim to forge. Populist leaders, on the contrary, have seen themselves as the embodiment of the democratic ideal. They conceive of democracy as mass mobilization and the occupation of public space rather than as respect for procedures and the rule of law. These conflicting understandings-which to an extent reproduce debates on formal and direct democracy-suggest the need for a deeper understanding of the uneasy relationship between populism and democracy in Ecuador. We need to examine the ways in which Ecuadorian democracy has been constructed and imagined. Undoubtedly, populism has been the most important political phenomenon in contemporary Ecuadorian history. Jose Maria Velasco Ibarra inaugurated mass populist politics in Ecuador and dominated the country's politics for four decades, gaining the presidency on five separate occasions (19341935, 1944-1947, 1952-1956, 1960-1961, and 1968-1972). Another populist party, the Concentracion de Fuerzas Populares (Concentration of Popular Forces-CFP), was the most significant political force in Guayaquil from the 1950s to the 1970s. The likely triumph of CFP leader Asaad Bucaram in the