Brigham Young University

Causes of Populism:

A Case Study of Argentine President Juan Domingo Perón

Fletcher Stewart-Chester, Matt Keepman, and Bryant Black

POLI 358

Dr. Kirk Hawkins

Introduction

Initial academic research into populism began in the 1960s and has been developed by

different scholars in subsequent years. Since then, populist theories have heavily impacted the

way in which political scientists view historical and modern regimes worldwide. While the

majority of studies focus on measuring or conceptualizing populism and its consequences, some

theories have sought to explain its causes. This paper seeks to explore the research currently

available on the causes of populism and ultimately compare leading theories in order to

determine which we esteem to be the most valuable. 

Although significant research has been done to further causal theory for populism, there

are also apparent weaknesses in the approaches taken with some of these studies. Existing causal

arguments tend to focus on populist party appeals and their connection to concurrent political,

emotional climates. Due to this approach, many theories are only able to explain populism from

a radical right or radical left perspective. Because of this, some theories fail to capture

populism’s universal characteristics. Another weakness to existing theories is a lack of emphasis

on the individual and how voters themselves are led to support populist leaders. Because

research tends to focus on the aggregate level, the power of the individual voter in support of

populist ideals has been neglected. Within that same highlighted flaw, the substance of populism

and its ideals have largely been ignored by popular theories. In pursuit of philosophically

oriented research, little is mentioned about how populist ideals become appealing to voters or

where the ideals themselves come from (Hawkins et al 2017). The rest of this paper will serve to

highlight three major theories about the causes of populism within the context of Latin America.

Specifically, these theories will be applied to the election of Juan Domingo Perón, a populist

leader elected in 1946 in Argentina. 

 In order to test the causes of populism within the framework of these leading theories, we

first outline a definition for populism itself. We then briefly present two existing arguments and

demonstrate their limitations. Finally, we offer evidence of the ideational approach to populism,

ultimately concluding that this, of all the leading theories, best explains why Argentine voters

supported and elected a populist leader. 

Populism: A Manichaean Discourse

While agreeing to some extent on individual people who represent populist ideals, pure

academic harmony towards one definition for populism itself does not exist. Some definitions

emphasize organizational structures with strong leadership while others stress economic policy

and redistribution strategies. Although this conceptual debate continues, this paper favors an

increasingly popular definition which views populism as a discourse. Accordingly, this approach

understands populism as a unique set of ideals, one that discerns a political Manichaean struggle

between the will of the common people and a conspiring elite (Hawkins 2009). Using this

definition for populism we are able to understand the universal characteristics of populism and

more accurately analyze its causes. This paper concludes that this is the most complete definition

for populism. 

Having defined populism, we then search to identify the causal mechanisms that help to

explain why these Manichaean  ideas “activate” in order for a populist leader to win general

elections. Later, while applying the ideational approach to populism and its definition, we

explain how views of democractic failures, when linked to a ruling elite, serve to activate general

populist ideals in the people; creating an environment in which a populist leader is elected. In

order to do this, we first provide a historical framework in which we explore a developing

Argentina and its eventual election of military leader General Juan D. Perón. 
Historical Framework

Argentina experienced a period of consistent democratic stability from 1916-1930. This

period abruptly came to an end with the stock market crash of 1929 and in turn, a sharp decline

in export revenues for Argentina. September 1930 brought about a coup d’etat made possible by

the military and supported by the middle class and traditional oligarchy. This coup resulted in the

five following decades to be characterized by political struggle. 

Due to the Great Depression, Argentina’s previous dependency on export revenue led to a

change in their economy. From 1930-1943, the economic landscape drastically changed,

domestic manufacturing was on the rise as opportunities and incentives for import substitution

industrialization increased. With an increased importance placed upon manufacturing, more and

more jobs were created in that industry. During this “infamous decade”, economic shifts brought

about desires for a new political landscape. The working class became less and less content with

the Conservative electoral fraud and economic policies. Labor unions increased in membership

considerably, playing an essential role in the eventual election of Juan Domingo Perón as the

President of Argentina in 1946 (Vandan and Prevost, pg. 351) 

This historical context provides an essential vantage point for the following

consideration of leading theories in the causes of populism. The rest of our paper will discuss

three leading causal arguments and apply them to this framework while adding additional

insights.  

Economic Thesis

In a famous approach developed by Downs (1957), rational-choice theory from

neoclassical economics has been applied to the study of political actors. The basis of this
behavioral argument is essentially that both voters and their elected officials are self-interested in

their decisions. Therefore, politicians respond to the self-interest of their constituents through

marketed “ideologies” that usually take the form of political parties. With this rational-choice

assumption, politicians market ideals that should, in theory, be attractive to the self-interest of

the median voter in any given political climate. As such, populist ideals are packaged and

presented to the voter based on certain conditions. These conditions usually fall within two

categories as outlined by Hawkins (2017), either “(1) a medium-term failure of established

parties to respond to the demands of their electorate in the face of socioeconomic change, or (2) a

long-term reaction to problems of corruption and weak governance.” Essentially, this theory

affirms that populism is the result of an unresponsive political regime that creates electoral space

for new party challengers (populists) to appeal to voters. 

As political scientists, we do value the merit of rational-choice theory and what it can

explain about political actors and their behavior. While we do recognize the reality of weak

governance creating electoral space for new parties, we do believe that this theory simplifies

human behavior and cannot adequately explain why individual voters choose populism. Indeed,

this theory lacks emphasis or ideas on how specific, individual voters are motivated to support

populist leaders. Rather than identifying the importance of populist ideals in persuading

constituents, this theory determines that populism must be the rational-choice for the self-

interests of the voter in order to gain support. Certainly, there are some weaknesses in this

argument, some of which are highlighted in our case study of Perón in Argentina. 

For example, medium-term structural changes had been happening in Argentina for more

than 15 years leading up to Perón’s election in 1946. The depression caused by the stock market

crash in 1929 displaced many Argentine middle class workers. With infrastructure and socio
economic changes happening as the market economy focussed on foreign imports and exports in

the 1930s, these middle class voters continued to support conservative rule in Argentina. In fact,

the conservative military itself received the support necessary for a coup in 1943 that installed,

removed, and reinstalled their own military presidents. Connections and allegations of corruption

were prevalent in Argentina throughout this entire time period. Both democratic instability and

unresponsiveness were very apparent to the Argentine citizens (Vanden and Prevost).

The question that has to be asked is, “where was populism from 1929-1945?” The

rational choice theory might conclude that the median voter’s preferences were such that

populism could not gain traction until 1946. However, we affirm that this argument lacks

essential emphasis on the individual and populist ideals in order to explain electoral support for

populist leaders. While this economic approach merits acknowledgment, we feel that this theory

was unable to answer our question of why the rise of Argentina’s populist leader happened

precisely when it did. 

Mass Society Theory

Mass Society is another theory that we studied in order to decide that ideational theory is

the most accurate definition to describe the cause of populism in Argentina. Mass society is a

notion that technology has changed the traditional culture and disrupts the peace in communities

making people live impersonal and isolated lives. From Kirk Hawkin’s (2017) Populism and its

Causes he states, “A ‘collective consciousness’—form a moral glue that results in social

integration. Industrialization, however, fundamentally changes the way individuals interact with

each other and the institutions with which they are familiar.” In other words, technological

advances will cause a separation of routine and tradition within social classes. Typically this

occurs when labor is restructured by industrialization or when technology manipulates the

weakness and instability of the masses. When these occur throughout the country, it causes

people to feel powerless to mobilize and have the ability to choose for themselves. Although the

mass society theory could have started Perón’s populist movement, we disagree that it defines

the preparation methods used to build the populist momentum. 

Similar to ideational theory, mass society theory will usually have a charismatic leader

that will stir up the populist movement. Kirk Hawkins describes this as such: 

“By positing an identity of “the people,” populist movements create the

functional equivalent of a working class identity that is capable of overcoming

differences and uniting citizens against a capitalist elite. The charismatic

leader is an essential component of this process because he or she provides a

physical referent, an “empty signifier,” into which otherwise diverse citizens

can read their individual interests.”

Perón could be labeled as a charismatic leader that led a populist revolt against the conspiring

elite of Argentina. The difference between a populist leader in the mass society theory and

ideational theory is the reasoning behind how the masses were prepared for a populist leader to

lead them against the conspiring elite. In the case of Perón, he led the Argentine people against

the political elite that were participating in government corruption for the betterment of

themselves. As stated previously, Perón brought to light the political corruption during his

campaign that ended in 1946. For example, when Juan Perón announced his presidential

candidacy in 1946 he said, “He (the political elite) wants to impose on our country his own

government, a puppet government, and for this reason, he has begun to secure a collection of all
the available “quislings.” This quote highlights the problem that he's using to leverage his

leadership in order to gather the masses into a revolt against a political elite.

Although there is some correlation between mass society theory and the populist

movement created by Perón in Argentina, the ideational theory is a more fitting description that

better explains the cause of populism in Argentina. Due to the Great Depression, Argentina’s

economy began to change. Over time, these changes brought about an influx of industrialization,

urbanization, and specialization, which happen to be the pillars of mass society theory. Even

though this follows mass society’s pattern, these economic dysfunctions aren't what pushed the

people into following the populist actor against the conspiriting elite. Although Argentina

experienced large economic and cultural shifts due to advances in technology we do not feel that

it was the sole cause of populism. 

Ideational Theory

We believe that the causes of populism in our case study of Argentina are based on

ideational theory. Throughout the infamous decade, as the people of Argentina faced economic

difficulty and political discontent, dormant populist ideals were switched on, leading to the

widespread approval of the 1943 military coup d’etat and the election of Juan Domingo Perón in

1946. Our paper will support the argument made in Hawkin’s article Activation of Populist

Attitudes which states “populist attitudes require a political context that makes them salient.” 

Argentina experienced a period of economic growth and prosperity throughout the early

20th century. 1916-1930 was a time of considerable political stability with the UCR (Unión

Cívica Radical) being at the forefront of strong political parties. Although the UCR was largely

focused on the political arena, they did little to adjust the socioeconomic situation of Argentina.
When the stock market crashed in 1929, Argentina was greatly affected, as mentioned

previously. The harsh change in economic landscape proved to be an opportunity for the elites to

band together with part of the discontented middle class and, jointly with the military, stage a

coup d’état. The next 16 years proved to be influential in the activation of populist ideals among

the people of Argentina, leading to the election of Juan Doming Perón, one of the most

commonly identified populists of Latin America. According to Dr. Kirk Hawkins, populist ideals

“must be activated through a context of actual material conditions and linguistic cues.” The

material conditions of Argentina leading up to 1946 are important to note and understand when

determining if they provide evidence for the ideational theory. Throughout the 1930’s the ruling

conservative groups attempted to create a political environment where their power was

uncontested. Their desire for political domination led to them being labeled as political elites,

and made them easily identifiable as the evil conspiring elite, the arch nemesis of the

romanticized common man in the definition of populism as a manichaean discourse.

Additionally, populist ideals are activated when “policy failures can be traced to systematic

malfeasance by traditional politicians” (Hawkins). Often in Latin America this malfeasance is

made manifest through widespread corruption. The social mood during the 1930’s is in part

characterized by “the growing discontent of the middle sectors with Conservative electoral fraud

and economic policies” (Vanden & Prevost). The Roca-Runciman Agreement between

Argentina and Great Britain was a policy that many Argentines disagreed with. Signed in May of

1933, this treaty guaranteed Argentina a fixed share in the British meat market and eliminated

tariffs on Argentine cereals. Additionally, Argentina agreed to restrictions on both trade and

currency exchange. The agreement was originally for three years but was extended for another

three. The treaty was seen by the working class as a better deal for Great Britain than for
Argentina. Due to this perception, the working class felt discontent with the governing body’s

decision in addition to the electoral fraud that had previously been occurring. As the middle class

of Argentina worked and adjusted to the continually shifting economic landscape, populist ideals

began to awake. The growing discontent for current political leaders pushed the working class to

not only desire change, but significant change. After 13 years (1930-1943) of Conservative rule,

a military coup plotted with authoritarian and nationalistic figures overthrew the government.

Over the next two years, two military presidents were removed from office and General

Edelmiro Farrell came into power as the president, with Juan Domingo Perón as the vice

president in 1944. However, there was discord between Perón and both military and civilian

opponents, which brought about the organization of the Labor party led by Perón himself. Due to

the growing popularity and power of Perón, his adversaries attempted to silence him through

incarceration on falsified charges. However, just a few days after being arrested and incarcerated,

a mass mobilization of workers successfully demanded his release. This event proved to be

influential in bringing to light the corruption of the current government as well as solidifying

Perón as a man of the people. 

Another important aspect of the ideational theory is that although there may be context

for populist ideals to activate, it is not an automatic activation. There needs to be an intermediary

to interpret the context and communicate the populist message. This is where populist actors

come into play. In the case of Argentina, Perón was the populist actor who communicated the

message of political corruption to the people. Through his organization of the Labor party and

him being at the forefront of organized labor unions, his voice rang in the ears of many

Argentine workers. Perón’s speeches, based on the Global Populism Database (GPD), are most

commonly ranked as 2/2 on the populist scale. In order to receive this ranking, the speech must
fulfill the criteria outlined on the actual rubric used to score the speech. Part of the criteria for a

populist speech is that “the evil is embodied in a minority...often an economic elite...perhaps the

oligarchy” and “the evil minority is or was recently in charge and subverted to its own interests”

(populism rubric). In Juan Domingo Perón’s campaign speeches, the previous government rulers,

conservatives, as well as neoliberalism, as represented by the United States, are depicted as the

evil minority. To shed greater light on the degree to which Perón depicted the actions of the

former ruling oligarchs, he compared them to Judas Iscariot, saying “I want to say that this

infamy is as sacrilegious as when Judas sold Christ, but in this dirty exchange another innocent

was sold: the working people of our beloved homeland” (Quiero decir solamente que esta

infamia es tan sacrílega como la del Iscariote que vendió a Cristo, pues en esta sucia

compraventa fue vendido otro inocente: el pueblo trabajador de nuestra querida Patria). Perón

gave countless speeches to thousands of listeners with similar rhetoric. He demonized the

conservatives that had previously been in political power while simultaneously uniting the

common workers of Argentina to mobilize and support him in his democratic run for the

presidency. The technology of today allows an individual to have almost limitless information at

their fingertips, including research and publications of experts on basically all topics. Argentina

in the 1940’s relied on newsstands and radio to diffuse information, especially what we would

call breaking news. Perón played the role of an intermediary as he took the context of his

country's democratic state, corrupt and evil, and communicated it to the people via populist

discourse. In doing so, he acted as the catalyst to activate populist ideals within the hearts and

minds of Argentina. This is true because as a result of his speeches and campaigning, Perón, an

undisputed populist, won the majority of the vote in the 1946 presidential election. Thus we
believe that both Perón and Argentina’s response to him act as affirmative evidence in support of

the ideational theory. 

Conclusion

Ever since the research of populism started in the 1960’s, populism became one of the

most popular theories used to analyze modern regimes by political scientists. Although populist

studies tend to focus on measuring or conceptualizing the outcomes of populism, there are

studies that focus on its causes. As a group, we focused on comparing the leading theories of

populism: economic thesis, mass society theory, and ideational theory, in order to determine

which defines Perón’s populist movement best. 

            A problem we faced while researching Perón’s populist campaign is that parts of each

traditional theory around populism can be found in every populist movement. All three of the

theories revolve around the universal theme of populism that the masses revolt against their

government. We carefully studied the details of all three theories and collectively agreed that the

ideational theory is the most fitting theory to describe the populist movement in Argentina. 

Although the mass society theory could be framed as the cause of the preparation for

Perón’s populist movement, we agreed it was the least accurate of the three theories in regards to

defining the populist campaign. This theory relies heavily on industrialization and technological

advances that separate the social classes and disrupt the natural culture of a society that's held

together by family and religion. These results create distance between individuals and cause the

masses to feel powerless. In the end, the people come together, through a mediator, in order to

battle against a capitalist elite. Industrialization did occur in Argentina and caused a separation of

the masses, but this happened slowly and continued well after the populist movement of 1946.
As a result, we do not feel that the mass society theory explains the cause of Argentina’s populist

movement.

To conclude, we believe the causes of populism in Argentina were rooted from the basics

of the ideation theory. Argentina’s political corruption caused there to be an influx of democratic

failures within the government. These failures created a ruling elite whose power was

uncontested, which therefore created an environment in which a populist leader could be elected.

Juan Domingo Perón of Argentina, prior to being elected into office, was the populist actor who

communicated the message of political corruption to the people. He utilized the corruption that

had been abused by the social elites to his advantage and was able to persuade citizens of

Argentina to come together in an act of rebellion to fight against them. The infamous discourse

of Perón is rated a 2/2 on the populist scale and the response from the people was such that their

inner populist ideals activated. 

Bibliography:

Hawkins, Kirk A., Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, and Ioannis Andreadis. 2018. “The

Activation of Populist Attitudes: Government and Opposition.” Cambridge Core. Cambridge

University Press. September 13. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-

opposition/article/activation-of-populist-attitudes/DB533748425A57B5895BB28FB3CBA34E.

Hawkins, Kirk, Madeleine Read, and Teun Pauwels. 2017. “Populism and Its Causes.”

Oxford Handbooks Online. October 26.

https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780198803560.001.0001/oxfordhb-

9780198803560-e-13.
 Hawkins, Kirk Andrew. 2019. “The Ideational Approach to Populism: Concept, Theory,

and Analysis.” Amazon. Routledge. https://www.amazon.com/Ideational-Approach-Populism-

Extremism-Democracy/dp/1138716510.

Perón, Juan D. 1946. February 12. “Acto de Proclamación de su Candidatura”.

Smith, Peter H., and Cameron J. Sells. 2017. “Democracy in Latin America: Political

Change in Comparative Perspective.” Amazon. Oxford University Press..

Vanden, Harry E., and Gary Prevost. 2018. Politics of Latin America: the Power Game.

New York: Oxford University Press.