Abstract

This dissertation takes up the problem of populism. While it has long been a prominent feature of the Latin American political landscape, and while the recent controversial actions of "neo-populists" like Venezuela's Hugo Chávez have underlined its continued political salience, populism remains poorly understood. Scholars have long disagreed not only about how best to explain its historical emergence, but more fundamentally about what it is and how it should be approached. This dissertation proposes a new conceptualization of the phenomenon. It argues that populism is most productively treated as a type of political mobilization—as a means that challengers and incumbents alike can employ in pursuit of a wide range of social, political, and economic agendas. Building on this renovated foundation, the first part of the dissertation explains the historical emergence of populist mobilization in Latin America. Through a comparative analysis of Latin American countries during the first half of the twentieth century, it identifies populist mobilization's historical preconditions. It then examines a strategically selected case—Peru's 1931 presidential election—to identify the paths by which two politicians of quite different ideological orientations came to undertake this particular line of political practice. The second part of the dissertation illuminates the practical organization of populist mobilization, demonstrating that it is far from the disorganized, demagogic sleight of hand often implied in the literature. It does this by analyzing two common populist tactics—grassroots incorporative organizing and the staging of mass rallies—as they were undertaken by the competing populists of Peru's 1931 election. The dissertation concludes by suggesting that the practice of populist mobilization might itself have important consequences—social polarization in the short term and political instability in the long term—that are, at least to a certain extent, independent of the ends toward which it is directed. Through this mechanism, populist mobilization may create conditions favorable to its own reproduction, resulting in ongoing cycles of populism. If this is indeed the case, as it appears to be in Peru, then attempts to explain neopopulism in Latin America must take this dynamic into account.