Left populism and institutions: lessons from Ecuador on Laclau’s antinomies

ABSTRACT

Populism and institutions have been characterized as antithetical to each other by Ernesto Laclau. Yet the Latin American pink tide has offered many instances of left populism in power, with Rafael Correa’s Ecuador representing a prime example of the enmeshment between populist rhetoric and technocratic construction. Some accounts have emerged to make room for the latter, while ultimately failing to capture much of the dynamics at play. One of the chief questions is that the simple enlargement of the State cannot be taken as a trustworthy indicator of the stability and regularity of the new institutions. In order to secure their sustainability, these need to be propped up by accountable governance and a broader cultural transformation. By neglecting such aspects, left populism in Ecuador has left behind a mixed record in terms of institutional legacy. From a normative viewpoint, populism is thus conceived as a transitional device which can usher in a new institutionality, but, if some of its ‘vices’ are excessively protracted, it may be indicative of its failure to instil a new hegemony and its institutional achievements may be subject to a swift dismantling.

Acknowledgments

The author would like to thank Arthur Borriello and the two anonymous reviewers for their constructive feedback

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. See, for example, S. Levitsky and J. Loxton, ‘Populism and competitive authoritarianism in the Andes’, Democratization, 20(1) (2013), pp. 107–136.

2. As argued below, Laclau seems to suggest that populism can only be oppositional. This is an expedient that prevents him from fully assuming the reverberations of the ontological on the ontic when populism is deployed by the power-holder, that is the likely effects of protracted polarization on governmental conduct. If the definition of populism is only a thin one based on polarization and equivalential articulation (as detailed in the following section), then it becomes easy to elide from the picture how populism manifests itself in the place of power. This permits us to see only its democratic potentialities (de-sedimentation, re-politization), while turning a blind eye on the negative ones, which are implicitly relegated to an ontic and thus non-necessary plane. However, as the article attempts to demonstrate, populist practices in power have more often than not been accompanied by (or directly provoked?) phenomena that have undermined their initial democratic credentials. This is a risk that some of Laclau’s most acute disciples have also signalled; see for example D. Howarth, ‘Ethos, Agonism and Populism: William Connolly and the Case for Radical Democracy’, The British Journal of Politics & International Relations, 10(2) (2008), p. 186.

3. S. Levitsky and K.M. Roberts, The resurgence of the Latin American left (Baltimore MD: JHU Press, 2011), p. 15.

4. For a sound critique of this weakness in Laclau’s approach, see A. Norval, ‘Democratic Identification. A Wittgensteinian Approach’, Political Theory, 34 (2006), pp. 229–255.

5. G. Aboy Carlés, ‘Las dos caras de Jano: acerca de la compleja relación entre populismo e instituciones políticas’, Pensamento plural, 7 (2010), pp. 21–40.

6. E. Rinesi, ‘Populismo y republicanismo’, Revista Ensambles, 2–3 (2015), pp. 84–94; V. Coronel and M.L. Cadahia, ‘Populismo republicano: más allá de «Estado versus pueblo»’, Nueva sociedad, 273 (2018), pp. 72–82; P. Biglieri and M.L. Cadahia, Seven Essays on Populism (Cambridge: Polity, 2021).

7. P. Ostiguy, ‘Gramáticas plebeyas: exceso, representación y fronteras porosas en el populismo oficialista’, in Claudio Véliz and Ariana Reano (Eds.) Gramáticas plebeyas. Populismo, democracia y nuevas izquierdas en América Latina (Buenos Aires: Ediciones UNGS, 2015), pp. 133–177.

8. Coronel and Cadahia, ‘Populismo republicano’, op. cit., Ref. 6, pp. 78–79. In the Anglo-Saxon world, a similar project is pursued by John McCormick. See his Machiavellian democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011).

9. Aboy Carlés, ‘Las dos caras de Jano’, op. cit., Ref. 5, p. 30.

10. See P. Ostiguy, F. Panizza and B. Moffitt (Eds.), Populism in Global Perspective. A Performative and Discursive Approach (New York-Abingdon: Routledge, 2021).

11. A. Borriello and A. Jäger, ‘The antinomies of Ernesto Laclau: a reassessment’, Journal of Political Ideologies, 26(3) (2020), pp. 298–316.

12. B. De Cleen, J. Glynos and A. Mondon, ‘Critical research on populism: Nine rules of engagement’, Organization, 25(5) (2018), p. 655.

13. E. Laclau, On Populist Reason (London: Verso, 2005), pp. 78–81.

14. E. Laclau, ‘Populism: What’s in a Name?’ in Francisco Panizza (Ed.) Populism and the Mirror of Democracy (London: Verso, 2005), p. 40.

15. Laclau, On Populist Reason, op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 100.

16. Laclau, ibid., p. 81.

17. Laclau, ‘Populism: What’s in a Name?’, op. cit., Ref. 14, p. 47.

18. Laclau, On Populist Reason, op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 67.

19. Laclau, ibid., p. 225.

20. F. Panizza, ‘Fisuras entre populismo y democracia en América Latina’, in Carlos de la Torre and Enrique Peruzzotti (Eds.) El Retorno del Pueblo. Populismo y Nuevas Democracias en América Latina (Quito: Flacso, 2008), p. 84.

21. Aboy Carlés, ‘Las dos caras de Jano’, op. cit., Ref. 5, pp. 23–24.

22. Laclau, ‘Populism: What’s in a Name?’, op. cit., Ref. 14, pp. 45–46.

23. Laclau, On Populist Reason, op. cit., Ref. 13, p. 154.

24. Laclau, ibid., p. 175.

25. Laclau, ‘Populism: What’s in a Name?’, op. cit., Ref. 14, pp. 46.

26. N.L. Sum and B. Jessop, Towards a cultural political economy: Putting culture in its place in political economy (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2013), p. 282.

27. D. Howarth, ‘Power, discourse, and policy: articulating a hegemony approach to critical policy studies’, Critical Policy Studies, 3(3–4) (2010), p. 321.

28. P.D. Thomas, The Gramscian Moment. Philosophy, Hegemony and Marxism (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2009), p. 137.

29. M. Mann, The Sources of Social Power, Volume One: A History of Power from the Beginning to A.D. 1760 (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p. 4.

30. J.C. Portantiero and E. De Ípola, ‘Lo nacional popular y los populismos realmente existentes’, Nueva Sociedad, 54 (1981), pp. 7–18.

31. Aboy Carlés, ‘Las dos caras de Jano’, op. cit., Ref. 5, p. 25.

32. Aboy Carlés, ibid., p. 28.

33. Aboy Carlés, ibid., p. 30.

34. M.L. Cadahia, V. Coronel, J.C. Guanche and S. Stoessel, ‘Hacia una nueva lógica del populismo: de la ruptura de las instituciones a la institucionalidad populista’, Recerca: revista de pensament i anàlisi, 25(1) (2020), pp. 1–21.

35. Biglieri and Cadahia, Seven Essays on Populism, op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 66.

36. E. Rinesi and M. Muraca, ‘Populismo y república. Algunos apuntes sobre un debate actual’, in Eduardo Rinesi, Gabriel Vommaro and Matias Muraca (Eds.) Si éste no es el pueblo. Hegemonía, populismo y democracia en Argentina (Buenos Aires: Universidad General Samientos, 2010), pp. 63–66.

37. Coronel and Cadahia, ‘Populismo republicano’, op. cit., Ref. 6, pp. 78–80.

38. Ostiguy, ‘Gramáticas plebeyas’, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 166. But see also.

39. Ostiguy, ibid., p. 159.

40. Ostiguy, ibid., pp. 166–167.

41. Ostiguy, ibid., p. 165.

42. Ostiguy, ibid., p. 164.

43. C.M. Conaghan, ‘Ecuador: Rafael Correa and the Citizens’ Revolution’, in Levitsky and Roberts (Eds.) The resurgence of the Latin American left, op. cit., Ref. 3, pp. 260–282.

44. S. Mazzolini, ‘Revolución Ciudadana y populismo de Laclau: una problematización’, in Matthieu Le Quang (Ed.) La Revolución Ciudadana en escala de grises: avances, continuidades y dilemas (Quito: Instituto de Altos Estudios Nacionales, 2016), pp. 28–29.

45. F. Sánchez and J. Polga-Hecimovich, ‘The Tools of Institutional Change under Post-Neoliberalism: Rafael Correa’s Ecuador’, Journal of Latin American Studies, 51(2) (2019), pp. 380–381.

46. See for example Sánchez and Polga-Hecimovich, ibid., pp. 394–397. This observation derives from my stint as a consultant within this institution. A clear example of its far from absolute authority is that the four-year National Plan for Development, also known as National Plan for Good Living, in principle a strictly binding document for all the public sector, remained for the most part dead letter.

47. C. de la Torre, ‘Rafael Correa’s Technopopulism in Comparative Perspective’, in Francisco Sánchez and Simón Pachano (Eds.) Assessing the Left Turn in Ecuador (Cham: Palgrave, 2020), p. 101.

48. J.D. Bowen, ‘Rethinking Democratic Governance: State Building, Autonomy, and Accountability in Correa’s Ecuador’, Journal of Politics in Latin America, 7(1) (2015), pp. 83–110.

49. F. Ramírez, ‘Political Change, State Autonomy, and Post-Neoliberalism in Ecuador, 2007–2012’, Latin American Perspectives, 43(1) (2016), p. 153.

50. J.D. Bowen, ‘Rethinking Democratic Governance’, op. cit., Ref. 48.

51. M. Rosero, ‘Ricardo Patiño sobre caso Manuela Picq: “No siempre el parte policial recoge exactamente lo que ocurre”’, El Comercio (2015), available online: https://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/politica/ricardopatino-visa-manuelapicq-deportacion-marchas.html.

52. A. Noboa, ‘Domingo Paredes ahora es integrante oficial del movimiento Alianza País’, El Comercio, (2016), available online: https://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/domingoparedes-alianzapais-cne-oficialismo-afiliacion.html.

53. S. Estrella, ‘Yasunidos sí habría conseguido las firmas para la consulta popular’, El Comercio (2014), available online: https://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/yasunidos-firmas-consulta-explotacion-petrolera.html; M.A. González, ‘Informe abre la puerta a que se retome consulta popular sobre el Yasuní’, El Comercio (2018), available online: https://www.elcomercio.com/actualidad/informe-cne-firmas-consulta-yasuni.html.

54. M. Sarmiento, ‘La gran farsa de la anulación de las firmas de la consulta por el Yasuní’, GK, 2021, available online: https://gk.city/2021/01/04/anularon-firmas-yasunidos-2014/.

55. On this, see M. Becker, ‘The Stormy Relations between Rafael Correa and Social Movements in Ecuador’, Latin American Perspectives, 40(3) (2013), pp. 43–62.

56. M. Mann, ‘The Autonomous Power of the State: Its Origins, Mechanisms and Results’, European Journal of Sociology, 25(2) (1984), p. 188.

57. S. Mazzolini, ‘Rafael Correa and the Citizens’ Revolution in Ecuador. A Case of Left-Wing Non-Hegemonic Populism’, in Pierre Ostiguy, Francisco Panizza and Benjamin Moffitt (Eds.) Populism in Global Perspective, op.cit., p. 107.

58. R. Ramírez and A. Minteguiaga, ‘Ecuador insurrecto y lucha de clases: la dialéctica entre materialidad y subjetividad’, in Franklin Ramírez Gallegos (Ed.) Octubre y el derecho a la resistencia. Revuelta popular y neoliberalismo autoritario en Ecuador (Buenos Aires: CLACSO, 2019), p. 370.

59. A. Minteguiaga, and V. Carmel, ‘Deconstruyendo los paradigmas de la política social: reflexiones desde el Ecuador reciente’, in Matthieu Le Quang (Ed.) La Revolución Ciudadana, op. cit., Ref. 44, p. 253.

60. Rinesi and Muraca, ‘Populismo y república’, op. cit., Ref. 36, p. 73.

61. Biglieri and Cadahia, Seven Essays on Populism, op. cit., Ref. 6, p. 67.

62. J.L. Villacañas, Populismo (Madrid: La Huerta Grande, 2015), p. 114.

63. C. Fernandéz Liria, En defensa del populismo (Madrid: Los Libros de la Catarata, 2016), p. 108.

64. Ó. García Agustín, Left-wing Populism. The Politics of the People (Bingley: Emerald, 2020), p. 88.

65. Ostiguy, ‘Gramáticas plebeyas’, op. cit., Ref. 7, p. 165.

66. E. Laclau, ‘Why Constructing a People Is the Main Task of Radical Politics’, Critical Inquiry, 32(4) (2006), pp. 646–680.

67. B. Moffitt, ‘How to Perform Crisis: A Model for Understanding the Key Role of Crisis in Contemporary Populism’, Government and Opposition, 50(2) (2015), pp. 189–217.

68. Ostiguy, ‘Gramáticas plebeyas’, op. cit., Ref. 7, pp. 157–158.

69. S. Hall, The Hard Road to Renewal. Thatcherism and the Crisis of the Left (London: Verso, 1988), p. 7.

70. B. Arditi, ‘Review Essay. Populism is Hegemony is Politics? On Ernesto Laclau’s On Populist Reason’, Constellations, 17(3), 2010, pp. 488–497; S. Mazzolini, ‘Populism Is not Hegemony: Towards a Re-Gramscianization of Ernesto Laclau’, Theory & Event 23(3) (2020), pp. 765–786.

71. See S. Hall, The Hard Road to Renewal, op. cit., Ref. 69.

72. A. Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1971), pp. 349–350.

73. On this see M. Filippini, ‘Decentrare il populismo: quattro critiche a Laclau’, in Fortunato Maria Cacciatore (Ed.) Il momento populista. Ernesto Laclau in discussione (Milan-Udine: Mimesis, 2019), pp. 75–98.