In the Name of the People: Democratization, Popular Organizations, and Populism in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador.

The essay examines how various governmental systems define “the People” and how leaders support democracy and populism to include the populace.

De la Torre discusses the various regimes of three presidents, including Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Rafael Correa of Ecuador, in order to grasp the concepts of populism and democratization. The article reveals that although all the three leaders attempted to bring power to the people, only Morales encouraged the inclusion of organizations of subaltern; the other two leaders concentrated power on the top leadership.

What is the main question or question this author is trying to answer?

De la Torre is trying to answer whether the regimes of Chavez, Morales, and Correa adopted similar patterns of fostering participation. Was the approaches and models used similar?

What is the author’s main argument?

The author argues that although all the three regimes fostered participation and involved the people in the government policies and decisions, the models and approaches used by the presidents differed. For instance, he states that while Ecuador’s participation approach was only voting process inclusion, Venezuela AND Bolivia extended theirs to including participatory institutions and mobilization of the public.

What important concepts and theories are presented?

A key concept considered in the article is populism which has been defined variably by different authors. In the 1990s, the concept was considered a positive political strategy used to confront the people against oligarchy. Other analysts, prior to this era, considered the concept a strategy that encouraged the manipulation of the ”irrational masses.”

Democratization was also a significant concept; the author explains that it encourages contestation of the people in which the government could be critiqued to improve the policies.

The author introduces the neoliberalization model which was adopted by the Bolivian government. Instead of promoting development, the model resulted in the failure of the state to maintain economic balance and growth.

A redistributive model has also been discussed; it was adopted by Correa in which the government tried to monopolize its mandate by blocking social movements from participating in government issues.

What relevance does this text have to the other readings for the week, or themes presented in this course?

The article provides a great insight on the role of social organizations in shaping democracy and government functions. Compared to the text of Cedric de Leon, Desai, and Tugal, both articles address how social movements impact democracy in a country.

Does the author discuss an explicit methodology to answer their questions? If so, what?

The author clearly highlights the method of addressing the questions in the introduction. He outlines that he aims at comparing the patterns adopted by the regimes in considering subpoints.

Does the author effectively convey their argument? What are the weaknesses of the article/chapter? What are its strengths?

The author effectively addresses his argument. One strength is the organization of the argument; the author tackles the question of democratization by country. He first addresses the issue in Bolivia, then Ecuador, and later Venezuela which enhances understanding of readers. A major weakness, however, is the lack of highlights of key points; one must read through the article before establishing the main argument.

Identify 2 questions for a class discussion

What are the differences in the democratization processes adopted by the three regimes?

Is Ecuador’s leadership model fully a democratized regime?