Document Type



This paper proposes a comparative analysis of two cases of populism in the United States and Latin America. The comparison between these democracies with distinct features is used to highlight two contrasting variants of populism. Therefore, the populism developed in the United States by Donald Trump and in Ecuador by Rafael Correa will be explored to argue that Correa implemented a technopopulist government, while Trump in the United States developed an anti-technocratic populism. These two case studies will be used to assert that both forms of populism are equally dangerous because they polarize societies, put democratic institutions into question, and destabilize the democratic system by claiming that only their political leaders represent the will of the people. However, these forms of populism are not equally solid. Interestingly enough, the populism developed by Trump does not hide anti-establishment, polarizing, and authoritarian convictions behind technocratic arguments, which makes it weaker and easier to challenge in electoral processes, opinion polls, and government legitimacy. On the other hand, Correa used technocracy to hide similar negative aspects of his populism which gave him enormous power and validity, something that Trump and his government did not possess. Consequently, the successes and failures of these two populist figures will be compared to illustrate that populism can evolve and adapt to the necessities of each state, satisfying the desires of those under the category of "true people." However, the evolution of populism and its rising variants makes models of government very difficult to defeat during free elections, leading to unstable societies and a complete disfiguration of democratic systems.

Additional Files

Cover letter.docx (12 kB)
Cover letter