X Close

Why populism always fails As Juan Perón's rise and fall showed, regimes dependent on a personality never succeed

The new President Juan Perón greets his people. Credit: Getty Images

The new President Juan Perón greets his people. Credit: Getty Images


February 24, 2021   6 mins

Populism has always thrived in times of great inequality. After all, as a political approach it aims to refocus policy to benefit the average person, rather than the elite. So in some ways it’s strange that, in the 21st century, populism is anathema to progressivism; it has become a way to woo a working class who liked things better the way they were. And populist appeals are often seen as manipulative: utilising rather than genuinely helping the working classes, exploiting the grievances of those who feel that their former privileges were being sapped by others — whether foreign markets, immigrants, minorities or women. Are these really features of populism, or bugs?

Like so many nations that have heard the siren call of populism, Argentina was a deeply unequal county when, 75 years ago today, an anti-establishment candidate decisively won a presidential election. Two decades before that, the nation had boasted the eighth-largest economy in the world; its capital, Buenos Aires, was seen as the “Paris of the Americas”, glittering with the wealth of an Anglo-Argentine upper class. But beyond this elite, poverty was rife, and when the Depression struck, the city, like so many around the world, had been flooded with struggling poor, from the rural “interior”. Urban poverty spiralled out of control.

Things improved, a little, during the Second World War. Having to manage without imports prompted a rise in manufacturing industry. A new military government, which took power in June 1943, needed the working class — the so-called descamisados, or “shirtless ones” — on their side. And so the administration created a new post: Secretary of Labour. It was filled by the man who came to be known as “Argentina’s First Worker”, Colonel Juan Domingo Perón.

Spearheading redistributive policies, Perón won the hearts and minds of the descamisados. He announced, early 1946, that he was running for president, in a speech that criticised oligarchy and foreign interference, which he claimed was abetted by the coalition of traditional parties he stood against. The 52-year-old won what was widely recognised as Argentina’s cleanest-ever election, held on 24 February 1946. The final results, announced in April, had Perón at nearly 1.5 million votes, versus the 1.2 million for the establishment candidate. The traditional coalition his opponent represented, arrayed against the popular colonel, were shocked by the defeat; they genuinely believed that a man disliked by the establishment could not enjoy widespread support. But the descamisados had made their opinion known.

Populist appeals these days are addressed primarily to those who feel downwardly mobile. But in 1940s Argentina, the working classes increasingly felt buoyed by greater possibilities and rising expectations. They were proud of their nation, but saw the traditional powers as exploitative investors to be curbed rather than as a threat. Perón assured would-be voters in his candidacy speech that he would collaborate with other nations, but on the basis of equality. His brand of populism, like modern-day versions, certainly mobilised the working class as a source of power; but it also genuinely boosted their position. Perón, rather than exploiting the working class, seemed to believe that his interests were identical to theirs: that he knew the solutions and was the best person to implement them.

Perón showed his genuine concern for the ordinary person while secretary of labour. He engineered a remarkable series of reforms: labour courts, minimum wages, paid holidays and sick pay. Labour rights were extended, for the first time, to rural workers. Child labour was regulated. Industrial workers gained substantial wage increases. Perón’s Secretariat also actively encouraged unionisation, promising that, unlike in the past, unions would negotiate benefits for their members. Of course, the advantages for Perón in the creation of this institutional support base were an equally important motivation. But the unions did make life better for his descamisados.

Perón also took very public charge of the relief efforts surrounding the January 1944 earthquake in San Juan — fundraising for it introduced him to his wife, the equally charismatic radio actress Eva Duarte. Both were unconventional — illegitimate children, she an actress of dubious reputation and he a man of mixed-race heritage — and both of them grated on polite society. This, of course, only increased their appeal in the eyes of their most devoted supporters. The Peróns, unlike some of today’s better-known populist leaders, could genuinely claim to understand and have shared the social and economic challenges the working classes faced.

In some ways, Perón did not let the descamisados down when he assumed the highest office. The flurry of pro-poor and anti-elite measures continued. With the economy unusually flush after the Second World War, he embarked on a round of nationalisations, taking utilities and railways out of foreign hands and bringing them under state control (albeit at excessive cost). The government also invested in health and public education, with a political programme often decried as demagogic, yet in fact based largely on that of the post-War Labour government in London. It put money into schools, hospitals, nursing training and tertiary education for workers, as well as holiday hotels for union members. Through the Eva Perón Foundation, low-cost homes were built. For Argentina’s hitherto ignored marginalised classes, they had truly never had it so good.

This was partly to do with Perón’s rhetoric. Despite his anti-oligarch and anti-imperialist stance, his was a more optimistic brand of populism than that espoused more recently in countries from the United States to Hungary. He of course shared some qualities with more recent populist figures, not least a talent for using mass media to get his message across — radio propaganda was the Twitter of its day. Yet his was generally a message of hope and prosperity for all, whereas today’s populists tend to be exclusionary.

Take Budapest’s propagandistic use of the term “cosmopolitanism” to deride “foreign” figures such as George Soros — compared with Perón’s attempts at inclusiveness (despite frequent claims of Nazi sympathies, he was the first Argentine president to denounce anti-Semitism and actively courted the large Jewish community). And faced with an imminent coup in 1955, Perón stepped down and left the country, rather than urging his supporters to fight and risk mounting casualties. His was an idealistic populism — naïve, even.

Perón was plagued with the same problem as all populist governments: his depended on personality, rather than a clear ideology. The government headed by Perón and Evita — a first lady with no elected post but who arguably came to wield at least as much power as her husband — used its power capriciously. It had little regard for legal forms, and, as time went on, dissent was increasingly repressed. Perón was also deliberately vague about any supposed ideological content in his Peronist Party (due to his frequently expressed belief that “if I define, I exclude”). Indeed, he defined his foreign policy, the so-called Third Position, as being on the Left, in the centre or on the Right according to the circumstances. Like any populist, he wanted to be all things to all people.

And despite a good stint in office, President Perón was never able to generate good economic management and sustained growth. The boom-bust cycles that had characterised the previous 50 years continued (and continue to this day). Perónism, like populist regimes throughout history, had reacted to immediate problems with short-term solutions, but stuttered when it came to the long-term.

Populism often grows out of a lack of institutions, but is ironically ill-suited to creating them; its focus is more on fighting fires than laying groundwork, on individual decision-making than strong policies. A country cannot be run by one man. It needs strong institutions. But for the charismatic, self-obsessed leaders who often head up populist governments, institutions are seen as a threat, because they create a framework that can make them redundant. So any benefits that populists bring a nation are invariably unsustainable. Perón’s achievements were ultimately and quite swiftly dismantled by the military government that overthrew him and sought to erase him and his supporters from history (a counterproductive approach that would only bolster his support in coming years.)

Now, Perón’s legacy is still a source of polarisation in Argentina. For many, he wrecked the nation permanently, while for others he dragged it into the modern age and gave the working classes an enduring political weight. Millions saw their wages increase and were able to buy a house or go on holiday for the first time. Thousands were beaten up for not shouting ‘Viva Perón’, or forced to join the president’s party to retain their jobs. As Perón liked to say, ‘the only truth is reality’.

The West today, like Argentina in 1946, is deeply unequal. As the middle classes have become more precarious, calls for a rebalance have mounted. It’s worth remembering that populists like Perón are skilled at channelling popular frustrations and shaping media narratives — and prone to demagogic outbursts and authoritarian tendencies when in power. Such leaders grow out of divisions that they skilfully exploit but rarely heal — no matter how immediately successful their policies — and sometimes generate backlash that only exacerbates those divisions. Yet they are also a symptom as well as a cause; they flourish in systems with deep pre-existing problems that last a lot longer than they do.

 

Jill Hedges’s Juan Perón: The Life of the People’s Colonel is published in May.


Dr Jill Hedges is Deputy Director of Analysis at Oxford Analytica. Her latest book Juan Perón: The Life of the People’s Colonel is out on May 6.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

28 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
J Bryant
J Bryant
3 years ago

The tag line for this article states “regimes dependent on a personality never succeed.” Fair enough. If, for example, the ‘populism’ current in the USA was nothing more than an extension of Trump’s outrageous personality, it would be unlikely to last.
But as the author notes at the end of her article, “Yet [populists] are also a symptom as well as a cause; they flourish in systems with deep pre-existing problems that last a lot longer than they do.” Only elements of the hysterical left are unwilling to admit that Trump is nothing more than a symptom of a deep-seated malaise in the US. The populist instincts in the US and throughout the western world are not going away anytime soon, irrespective of which political leader is in power. I would expect them to intensify as the actions of the political left become ever more extreme.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago

‘Indeed, he defined his foreign policy, the so-called Third Position, as being on the Left, in the centre or on the Right according to the circumstances. Like any populist, he wanted to be all things to all people.’
So that’s where Blair got his ‘Third Way’ from. The heir to Peron.
Actually I don’t think Trump or Orban (against whom this article is targeted) want to be ‘all things to all people’. Whether you agree with them or not, they have clearly defined enemies.

David Owsley
David Owsley
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

No, Blair’s third way was Mussolini’s.

David Bell
David Bell
3 years ago

“Why populism always fails?” – The question should be “why do all politicians fail?” because the old adage of “all political careers end in failure” applies to populist and to the establishment figures. The question of why all politicians eventually fail should be of great interest but is rarely discussed.
In my view it is because every politician has a set of ideas and policies which are specific to their time and place. In 1979 Mrs Thatcher (and Ragan in 1980) had a vision and the drive to push through economic reforms that transformed the UK (and USA). But Mrs Thatcher push to far with her reform of rates and Regan ran out of steam and his advisors took certain polices to far.
Populism has not failed, it is a policy movement for this moment, but that will change. It does not make the policy or the idea a failure, just as Mrs Thatcher was not a failure as a PM. But the policies agenda needed in future years will change and that requires a new person at the top with new ideas!
Populism does not “Always fail”. Like every political idea it’s time will come and go and it will leave it’s mark like every other political philosophy.

A B
A B
1 year ago
Reply to  David Bell

Every politician has their time, but creating a perfect society is impossible. Instead, the best solution is to engage in debates and discussions to find the best solution for everyone. It’s crucial to have term limits for politicians to prevent them from holding on to power for too long, which can lead to dictatorship. Populism might seem like a fast solution, but it’s not easy, and good changes require institutions, good ideas, and people to develop them both before and after votes.
Rather than hate, politicians should seek more debates and agreements to make society better for everyone. The perfect society, to me, is one in which everyone, regardless of social class or political affiliation, has the power to decide and be free without damaging others.

Saul D
Saul D
3 years ago

Early C20th Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world. Then Peron introduced a set of reforms and regulation that more resemble a modern progressive Democratic party manifesto than anything. Although the history is complicated by the Great Depression and WWI, the ultimate outcome was longstanding large-scale inflation that eventually destroyed the Argentinian economy. Didn’t the same also happen with Chavez in Venezuela?

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Saul D

Argentina’s (relative) decline set in before Peron. I have a friend of Italian extraction. Many of his ancestors and relatives emigrated to Argentina at various points from the early 20th century onwards, along with countless other Italians. We always joke that it was the arrival of the Italians, and the departure of British interests, that sealed Argentina’s fate.

Richard Audley
Richard Audley
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

The sale of the Buenos Aires branch of Harrods in 1922 to local interests was the beginning of the end.

Fraser Bailey
Fraser Bailey
3 years ago
Reply to  Richard Audley

So that’s where Eva Peron got her outfits from. I had always wondered.

Nigel H
Nigel H
3 years ago
Reply to  Fraser Bailey

“We always joke that it was the arrival of the Italians, and the departure of British interests” –
Is this a case of :- Many a true word is spoken in jest…?

robert scheetz
robert scheetz
3 years ago

I think this is a tad reductive. Hitler won power in large part because the elites preferred him to Liebknecht, Luxemburg & Ulbricht. Similarly, Trump won over here because the elites feared Bernie. Their supreme leader, Lloyd Blankfein (Chairman of Goldman Sacks) famously declared he’d vote for Trump if Bernie was the alternative.

The point is: there’s more than one brand of populism. And further, Sanders had the tried & true institutional structures of New Deal-ism which he was only professing to refine and extend.

Chris Brown
Chris Brown
3 years ago
Reply to  robert scheetz

Hitler won because the Middle Classes were destroyed by Weimar inflation and felt they had nothing to lose. A burgeoning middle class (and aspiring working class) created liberal modern societies and without them those liberal societies will fail. At present globalism threatens their prosperity, maybe existence. Modern democracies should be self correcting in this respect, (arguably Brexit was evidence of this). If it doesn’t we’re in trouble.

Steve Gwynne
Steve Gwynne
3 years ago

The missing component in these polemics about populism is the fact that society is in general composed of three classes, the working class, the middle class and the upper class.

Populists win elections when the working class consolidates their democratic power with either the middle class or the upper class.

In simple binary terms, right populism is when the working class consolidates with the upper class and left populism is when the working class consolidates with the middle class.

Each type is an uneasy relationship since it directly threatens established hierarchies. Similarly, each type is an unstable relationship since the ousted class still has the power to undermine economic performance whether as managers or bosses.

Typically, anti-populists are from the middle class or the upper class depending on whether working class solidarity is aligned with the middle class or the upper class. In recent times, most anti-populists are from the middle class as right populism surges who tend to frame their anti-populism as ad hominem narratives whether in terms of the demagogic personality of the elected populist or the naivity of the working class.

However, what anti-populists never do is understand the phenomenon of populism as a set of class relationships with working class solidarity holding the balance of power. Presumably this is because neither the middle class or the upper class wishes to acknowledge the hierarchy of power within society.

Instead, the middle class will seek to defame the populist leadership whilst sabotage the integrity of the economy in hidden ways in order to reinforce narratives of incompetence, in order to win the hearts and minds of the working class. The alternative, from a middle class perspective is to consolidate their democratic power and align with the upper class which in the UK would be extremely unrealistic.

If Jeremy Corbyn had won the last election and ushered in a left populism, then the upper class would essentially play the same game which would similarly seek to exclude any narrative of the established hierarchy of power within our society along with intentional economic sabotage to support narratives of incompetence.

So at present, at least in the UK, as long as the upper class continues with its levelling up programme with a close eye on increasing working class prosperity, then there is little likelihood of a left populism resurgence any time soon. Especially as the middle class left have spent the last five years denigrating the working class.

Last edited 3 years ago by Steve Gwynne
Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
3 years ago

The author has taken a knowledge of Peron and the commented on other countries.
Argentina made a fortune selling meat to Britain in WW2. Peron spent more money than the country earned.Cecil said Elizabth 1 greatest asset was that she was parsimonious which meant taxes were not wasted.
Spending more than one earns coupled with corruption leads to inflation, a run on the currency which destroys the middle class but wealthy who can earn foreign currency can do well. A rancher selling beef in foreign currency did well. Inflation destroys savings. People with foreign currency can buy assets cheaply. Those in the ruling party can use their politcal power to force people to sell assets at below market value.
The problem with nationalising assets is that Part members end up running them; into the ground. The Vesteys( from Liverpool) developed modern refrigeration technology and used it to create the largest meat company in the world. The Vesteys, owned everything from ranches in Argentina, railways, slaughter houses, canning factories, refrigerated ships and butcher shops in the UK. If the Argentinians had done this before the Vesteys, they would have made the money.

robert scheetz
robert scheetz
3 years ago
Reply to  Charles Hedges

Pretty sanctimonious considering the parsimonious Brits blew off their war debt to Argentina.

Charles Hedges
Charles Hedges
3 years ago
Reply to  robert scheetz

We were bankrupt by 1942 and bought time ( according to Stalin )which is one commodity one cannot buy.
Why did’t an Argentinian develop refrigeration for moving meat and beat Vesteys to the market? The Vestey got the idea from a member working in the Chicago meat industry.
Brazil declared war on Germany, Argentina did not. By 1945, Argentina had one of the highest per capita incomes of any country.
How many Nazis fled to Argentina apart from Joseph Mengele? What did the Argentinian people do to deport the Nazis ?
Argentina was a golden country in 1945 and the people of the left and right blew it, helped by Peron.

Dennis Boylon
Dennis Boylon
3 years ago

1215, 1783, 1799… I don’t think they always fail. Especially when the establishment is completely corrupt and against the people. Kind of like now.

Chris Brown
Chris Brown
3 years ago
Reply to  Dennis Boylon

If our democratic institutions work we will reform and be ok. If those institutions are not responsive to the voters (like the EU?) they will not and they will fail.

mike otter
mike otter
3 years ago

I’m not at all sure populism needs to be a cult of personality or that personality driven leaders have to be populists ( ie Castro Bros, Kims in NK) I think populism’s short life span stems from its being a version of the tragedy of the commons. So the general populace with their fairly simplified take on complex problems say something like “i have hands, why am i ( or my proxy Mr Trump) not running the ship?”. Once they get on the tiller they head straight for the rocks. What is more interesting is the so called technocrats, the third way brigade and the old trad centre left/centre right parties seem to end up on the same rocks despite their claim to be above us plebs and infallable!

robert scheetz
robert scheetz
3 years ago
Reply to  mike otter

The populist, Frank Roosevelt, formerly Governor of New York, knew very well how to captain the ship and, the elite, ie the enlightened fraction (very tiny) admit, saved it from the rocks (ie, communism/socialism) if so they were.

Last edited 3 years ago by robert scheetz
Colin Haller
Colin Haller
3 years ago

Ugh — another ahistorical use of the term “Populism” which was literally created in the rural USA at the end of the 19thC. See Thomas Frank’s “The People, NO” for all the details, including how Hofstadter’s misrepresentation of the movement has created an enduring impression of the minds of those unfamiliar with the real history.

Keith Brockwell
Keith Brockwell
3 years ago

Small EU quotas and high import duty slaughtered the vast meat trade from South America to the UK.

Christopher Barclay
Christopher Barclay
3 years ago

Peron was not a disaster for Argentina because he came from outside the Establishment. He was a disaster because his government didn’t balance its books and let inflation rip. These policies have been adopted as orthodoxy by Establishment politicians around the world. Italy has been essentially insolvent since the mid-90s and Japan from around 2000. Government finances have been trashed in the US since the election of Bush Junior and in Britain and other countries since 2008. The full ‘fruits’ of these policies will only be seen when inflation starts to rise.
It’s curious that Dr Hedges mentions people being beaten up by Peron’s supporters but does not mention the violence perpetrated by the Establishment. The violence by Peron’s supporters was triggered by the Argentine Navy bombing a political rally in the Plaza de Mayo in 1955 and killing 364 people. (Yes, you read that correctly). This was just the start of the atrocities that the Argentine Establishment that Dr Hedges presumably supports showed itself to be capable of.

G Worker
G Worker
3 years ago

Populism within the liberal thought-world must fail because it is inevitably the inauthentic struggle of the non-real liberal model of Man (ie, as the unfettering will). His truth is, of course, that of the blood, of family, of kin, of belonging. These are his most vital ties. Man is racial, therefore. He is ethnic. He is tribal. When these commonalities are emergent in his public and political life, especially at an existential moment in his history, then his struggle is authentic. Success or failure, he is fighting for life itself, and there is no more necessary and moral expression of what it means to be human.

Last edited 3 years ago by G Worker
Clive Mitchell
Clive Mitchell
3 years ago

This article seems quite approving of old Peron. I never read such a positive profile before. Almost a good populist then!

jvirgin jvirgin
jvirgin jvirgin
3 years ago

The author conflates populism with personality cult. What tends to happen eventually is either populist ideas are either absorbed by other more mainstream parties (e.g. Brexit) or are completely rejected and there is some sort of coup.

Andre Lower
Andre Lower
3 years ago

Excellent article. It still baffles me that people chose the easy, but hopelessly shot-sighted path of populism (with its cliches of demagogy & opportunism) over leveraging on democracy’s regular tools – conscientious, carefully selected politicians – to rid them of bad governments.
Granted, the democratic path is sometimes slow and full of snags. But how can populist supporters fail to realize just how short-legged populist plans are? How can they find populism justifiable because “ah well, I am so frustrated…”? How many historical examples like Perón, Chavez, etc. do they need before they consider the ultimate consequences? Don’t they realize that populism is the nemesis of the democracy their futures depend on?

Last edited 3 years ago by Andre Lower
G Worker
G Worker
3 years ago
Reply to  Andre Lower

Bad politicians arise, ultimately, through bad systemic philosophy.