Populist leaders in Latin America were able to incorporate more than just the working class. They needed to draw support from other sectors in order to win elections. Peron, for example, received most of his support from the urban laborers he knew that he also had to draw support from the rural areas in order to secure more votes. Furthermore, Peron was able to secure his power by creating his own political party. Maybe one of the most important attributes of earlier populist leaders was their personal qualities such as charisma. Personal traits of populist leaders became very important for them to really gain access to power in their respective countries. It was during the time when new technologies in the area of transportation and communication became available in Latin America, that these new kinds of leaders could really become well known. Technology allowed leaders to reach out to the masses and secure more votes than possible in the past. Populists were able to build multi-class coalitions in their countries, partly by incorporating groups that were outside the political system. They also used tactics such as invoking nationalistic pride in order to advocate unity. They used nationalism to blame other countries for misfortunes and problems that came from exploitation.

Populism encouraged industrial progress. Although there were class gaps, there were alliances made in order to form a link between the working class and the industrial upper class in order to minimize class antagonism. Populism used import-substitution policy rather than primary product export. The Populist Party believed in an activist government, protection of workers and wages, and state ownership of key industries. Its main voting base came from the urban working class however it also included the middle class and domestic industrialists.

Populism, as other forms of government, had its own downfalls. It brought about rural poverty, budget deficits, and external debts. Populism expanded the welfare of the state and brought many benefits to workers. It didn’t correct poverty, but it was able to help urban workers and the middle class. Small groups were helped at the expense of the larger groups.

Sources cited:

Malloy, James. Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press1977