Populism

Robert Mayer over at Publius Pundit recommended the following article from the US Army War College: "The Strategic Implications of the Rise of Populism in Europe and South America"

It's a good article and worth reading for students of comparative democracy. The author defines populism as a strategic threat to US interests because it represents a backsliding of democratic institutions in areas which we already consider democracies, Europe and South America. He points to four populist movements in the Netherlands, Ukraine, Venezuela and Bolivia.

I wish I had time to write a longer, better review, but lacking that, here's a few good and bad points in bullet form.

Good

• Well defines populism in general (people no longer feel represented by the government, willing to defy democratic institutions to obtain representation, normally led by a charismatic leader).
• Defines the threat of populism to democracy. Also well defines the threat that comes with the speed of populist movements.
• Shows that populism comes from both democratic institutions that are too weak as well as those that are too rigid. I was especially impressed that the author correctly showed that the populism of Chavez in Venezuela (who rallied against a very stable, but corrupt democratic system) is different from the populism of Morales in Bolivia (takes advantage of weak democratic institutions). Stable democracies have strong institutions which are also flexible.
  
• He also notes that populism can undermine political bases in places where the US may need to project military force (and I'll assume diplomatic or economic force as well).
  
• Notes that the US, by seeing democracy as 'inevitable' has a blindspot when it comes to places where democracy may slide backwards.

Bad

• Fails to recognize where populism may be in the US's strategic interest, as in Ukraine, Georgia or Lebanon. In fact, he says we should avoid temporary alliances with populists. I would argue that at times populism may be a strong, non-violent diplomatic tool that the US has encouraged in the past and should continue to consider in the future.
• Overstates the threat of an alliance of regional populism. I know it's a possible threat and a great bogeyman for his article, but populism remains much more an individual state issue and that should be the focus. If we only focus on worst-case scenarios, we'll miss the point.
• Misinterprets Hugo Chavez. He is absolutely right that Chavez should provide a case model for what can happen if a populist leader comes to power (in Chavez's case, mass corruption ensues and he simply becomes part of the corrupt elite he once rallied against, except with the poor population supporting him). However, he interprets Chavez as a pro-indigenous movement person. Chavez is really more of an anti-globalization person. At times the indigenous and anti-globalization movements are unified, at times they are not. The indigenous do not see Chavez as some sort of indigenous leader, nor is Chavez going to lead the continent of South America into a racial civil war as the author actually says is a scenario.
• Does not provide of a solution. The author defines the problem well and argues we should be concerned about populism and prepare our military and diplomatic personnel to deal with populism, but he doesn't say how. This may make for a good follow up article.