We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Can a far-right populist win in Argentina?
For the first time ever, someone unaffiliated with either of Argentina’s two main political blocs is making a serious run at the presidency. In fact, Javier Milei is not a traditional politician but an eccentric economist and TV provocateur who promises radical measures to rescue an economy in shambles and tame an annual inflation rate hovering over 100%. He claims to not have brushed his hair since he was 13 and is famous for antics like auctioning off his paycheck. With six months to go to the Oct. 22 election, Milei's message is resonating especially with young voters fed up with a political establishment that has long been unable to solve the country’s problems. Let's learn more about this guy from Eurasia Group analyst Luciano Sigalov.
Who is Javier Milei?
A former university professor and corporate economist, the 52-year-old Milei first captured the public’s attention as a conservative pundit on television talk shows. His unruly hair, wild eyes, and inflammatory statements – for example, calling politicians “thieves” and “criminals” – made him a charismatic figure. In 2021, Milei won a seat in congress. Now, he is running for president as the head of his Liberty Advances party.
What are Milei’s political views?
His views have a lot in common with those of far-right populists such as Donald Trump and Brazil’s Jair Bolsonaro. Milei believes politics is a no-holds-barred contest between the “good guys” and the “bad guys,” the latter represented by traditional political parties from the left to the center right of the political spectrum, which he calls the “caste.” He opposes feminism and abortion as part of a crusade against “cultural Marxism” that he believes has awarded minority groups with too many rights, to the detriment of what he considers ordinary people. And he promises a return to an early-20th-century golden era when Argentina was one of the richest countries in the world thanks to its booming agricultural and beef exports.
Milei calls himself an “anarcho-capitalist” – what does that mean?
Anarcho-capitalists seek the dismantling of the state and the creation of a society regulated solely by the free interactions of individuals and their property. But given the impossibility of implementing this vision in the real world, Milei wants to reduce the state’s presence to a bare minimum. He has proposed eliminating several ministries, privatizing state-owned companies, dollarizing the economy, and shuttering the central bank.
Why is Milei so popular?
He is a gifted demagogue who has effectively tapped into a rising tide of antiestablishment sentiment. Opinion surveys show that his popularity is driven more by his vehement criticism of the political elite than by his radical policy proposals and references to economic theories most people have never heard of. Yet the simplicity of the solutions he offers to intractable problems also has appeal for many voters – especially his proposal to replace the country’s currency with the dollar as a remedy for runaway inflation.
What are his main strengths and weaknesses as a candidate?
Novelty is his biggest strength. He has not previously been in government, so he can freely criticize the two main political coalitions, blaming them for all the country’s problems. Yet his rhetoric is too radical to win over many voters, and he lacks an organization capable of conducting an effective national campaign. Nor does he have a team ready to assume office if he wins.
What do the polls say about his chances?
Polls in Argentina do not have a good track record, so they need to be taken with a pinch of salt. The latest polling is tied to the Aug. 13 primaries (everyone running for president in Argentina is required to participate in the primaries, even if they are their parties’ only candidates, as in Milei’s case). Recent surveys show that about 20% of respondents say they would vote for Milei in the primaries, second only to the share supporting Vice President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (25%), who is not running. That said, the two potential candidates for the Together for Change opposition have a combined vote share of about 30%. The ruling Everybody’s Front has about 25%. President Alberto Fernández — no relation to his Veep — is not running for reelection.
The polling suggests that Milei has a good chance of a second-place finish in the Oct. 22 election, which could force a runoff between the top two finishers on Nov. 19. A runoff is required if the election’s winner fails to obtain at least 45% of the vote or 40% of the vote and at least a 10 percentage point lead over the second-place finisher.
What does Milei’s fame tell us about the state of Argentinian politics and the country today?
It reflects the failure of the political class to agree on basic policies to get the country moving again and end an economic crisis that has gone on for far too long. It also shows that, even though memories of the country’s 1976-83 military dictatorship remain fresh, Argentines are not immune to the appeal of far-right populism and politicians of dubious democratic credentials.
Is Milei an authoritarian?
He has made numerous comments that suggest he might not respect the rules of democracy were he to win the election. He has enthusiastically praised leaders such as Trump and Bolsonaro, who sought to undermine the rule of law in their countries, and has said he would resort to popular consultation mechanisms if congress were to reject his reform plans. When talking about Argentina’s golden era, he links its end to the election of Hipólito Yrigoyen as president in the country’s first free and fair vote in 1916. And though Milei condemns the recent military dictatorship, he disputes the official number of 30,000 people killed or kidnapped by the regime.
Edited by Jonathan House, Senior Editor, Eurasia Group.
Populism vs. moderate politics
For Tony Blair three challenges will define geopolitics in the near future: the Western relationship with China, making democracy more effective, and harnessing the tech revolution.
How can we address them? The former British PM — who along with then-US President Bill Clinton led the centrist "Third Way" of politics in the 1990s — says that we need to return to the center to match challenges that'll be more practical than ideological.
Speaking to Ian Bremmer on GZERO World, Blair acknowledges that populism wins when voters believe that centrism can't solve their problems.
His solution? More politicians with experience beyond politics who can "understand the world, embrace it, and then change it."
The video above is an excerpt from the weekly show, GZERO World with Ian Bremmer, which airs weekly on US public television. Watch the episode on "upheaval in UK" here.
- Authoritarian alliances & the future of the free world ›
- The “authoritarian honeymoon” is over, says John Kerry - GZERO ... ›
- The politics of resentment & how authoritarian strongmen gain ... ›
- Liz Truss' unenviable new gig - GZERO Media ›
- Upheaval in UK: the sobering challenges facing new PM Truss ... ›
- Podcast: "United" Kingdom? Tony Blair on Truss, Charles, Brexit ... ›
Which authoritarian is “best of the worst”? Gideon Rachman's favorite strongman
Gideon Rachman, chief foreign affairs columnist at the Financial Times, has just published a new book about autocrats, so Ian Bremmer puts him on the spot on GZERO World.
Which one appeals to you the most?
"That is difficult. I wouldn't say ... I'm running desperately through my head," says Rachman, before settling on one autocrat he's not a fan of but concedes is at least "an interesting figure."
Clues: He leads a very populous country, comes from humble beginnings, and Rachman believes he's not personally corrupt like other strongmen.
Watch the GZERO World episode: The politics of resentment & how authoritarian strongmen gain power.
Want to fix US political division? Narrow the wealth gap, says investor Ray Dalio
What happened on January 6, 2021, did not at all surprise billionaire investor Ray Dalio.
History, he says, shows that both right-wing and left-wing populism begins to gain power when there's a large wealth gap.
So, what comes next?
"It's entirely possible that neither party will accept losing, um, on, uh, the presidential election."
But it's not too late to prevent another US civil war — and Dalio thinks that, of all things, capitalism can help.
"The financial dynamic needs to satisfy the political dynamic" by narrowing the wealth gap.
Watch the GZERO World episode: Does China's rise have to mean America's decline?
- Why "cheap money" is worrying billionaire US investor Ray Dalio ... ›
- Podcast: No Empire lasts forever: How China's rise could trigger a ... ›
- The future of January 6 - GZERO Media ›
- The Graphic Truth: Dem/GOP voters' very different views of Jan 6 ... ›
- The pandemic is hurting women more than men - GZERO Media ›
- Graphic Truth: Global inequality - GZERO Media ›
European populism after Trump
During his four years in office, former President Donald Trump wasn't just a rock star to his devoted MAGA base in the United States. He was a model for budding populists across Europe, says former Italian Prime Minister Enrico Letta. And now his sudden absence on the world stage presents real challenges for the populist leaders that hitched their ride to his wagon.
Letta spoke with Ian Bremmer on an episode of GZERO World, which began airing on US public television stations nationwide on Friday, March 26. Check local listings.
Watch the episode: Italy in Europe's spotlight: insights from former PM Enrico Letta
Is the European Union too big? Wolfgang Ischinger on the EU's future
One of Europe's top diplomats, Wolfgang Ischinger, joins GZERO World in our latest episode to discuss a wide range of geopolitical issues—from US/EU relations to China. In this clip, the former ambassador to the US and UK and current Chairman of the Munich Security Conference offers his thoughts on the rise of populism in EU nations like Hungary and Poland, and what it means for the future of the union.
Calling AMLO authoritarian is a gross exaggeration
On this edition of The Red Pen, where we pick apart the argument in a major opinion piece, Ian Bremmer is joined by Eurasia Group's Daniel Kerner, Carlos Petersen, and Ana Abad to take on an an op-ed from the FT about Andrés Manuel López Obrador, aka AMLO.
Today's selection comes from the Financial Times editorial board, an op-ed titled "Lopez Obrador Becomes Latin America's New Strongman."
It's about Mexico's president Andrés Manuel López Obrador, or AMLO as he's widely known. AMLO was elected in a landslide victory nearly two years ago by voters who were fed up with corruption in their nation. Now, a growing number have buyer's remorse as the economy continues to spiral downward and crime and corruption still remain high.
The article correctly points out this has not been a good couple of years for Mexico or for AMLO, and we agree with that assertion. But it's time to get out the red pen, because we're not buying a central argument of this piece.
The FT writes that AMLO is an "authoritarian populist," and under his leadership, Mexico is headed for a "more repressive" system. The article cites a litany of aggressive behavior against his critics, such as intimidating the media or calling out environmentalists who don't like his infrastructure projects. "When a president demands 'blind loyalty,' from officials," the FT writes, "alarm bells should ring."
Sure, AMLO is incompetent, his policies are messy, and he uses aggressive rhetoric. But we need to separate his bark from his bite. Is he intolerant and hostile? Yes. Is he suppressing protests, shutting down media outlets, and disrupting the electoral process? No.
Next, the FT writes that while AMLO won a big victory in 2018, he did not win "a mandate to dismantle institutions" in Mexico.
Actually, Mexicans elected him president precisely they didn't trust those institutions and felt they were only there to benefit the rich. Many of those same institutions were already weak or in need of reform. AMLO has accepted limits in congress and the judiciary and has made no mention of broad institutional changes--as other truly authoritarian leaders have done.
Finally, the FT writes that under AMLO, "The golden opportunity offered by the newly-agreed US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement to lure American companies returning from China to Mexico is being squandered." And that is just wrong.
We definitely need some red ink on this one. USMCA would not have advanced without AMLO's full support. It was approved just last year, and then the pandemic hit the economy. It's hard to say what longer-term impact it will have. But while AMLO could have played hardball with Trump and ruined one of the most positive developments in the Mexican economy, he did the opposite.
There's another point the op-ed misses which better explains why AMLO is president at all—Mexico endured a couple of decades of weak leadership, widespread corruption and the impact of violent drug wars, and disappointing economic growth.
AMLO may not end up being the right guy to turn all that around for a number of reasons, but calling him authoritarian is a gross exaggeration.
There you have it. That's your latest edition of The Red Pen.Populists and the plague
You might think that a global public health crisis would boost public trust in experts, reinforce support for international cooperation, and restore faith in the multilateral institutions leading the response. You might, therefore, assume that the coronavirus pandemic wouldn't play in favor of the largely expert-blasting, populist nationalists who have swept to power in recent years. In truth, the picture is more mixed, and populists may ultimately benefit from the pandemic upheaval. A few thoughts:
First, populists aren't doing a markedly worse job than anyone else. The countries suffering the world's five largest death tolls — US, Brazil, India, Mexico, and the United Kingdom — are all led by populists, but all that tells us is that several of the world's largest countries are run by populists (bigger populations will give you a higher total number of infections and deaths). When you look at the top ten countries by death rate, populists are barely half of the group (see our Graphic Truth, below). What's more, some prominent populists, like Hungary's Viktor Orbán or Turkey's Recep Erdogan, have managed the crisis well by acting early and decisively — perhaps too decisively for the comfort of democracy watchdogs in the case of Orbán.
Even the populist leaders with large outbreaks mentioned above have avoided paying a big political price—at least so far. All these leaders have downplayed the severity of the virus, but we found that they have kept relatively stable in the polls thanks to strongly committed base voters, generally weak opposition, and shrewd exploitation of the growing economic frustration of the millions whom lockdowns have left jobless.
Looking ahead, the aftermath of the crisis may create fertile ground for populist messages. Even before the pandemic struck, concerns about inequality were reshaping politics in the world's democracies, eroding support for traditional parties and opening space for political outsiders. A Pew poll run just before the pandemic found that two-thirds of people surveyed across 34 countries thought inequality was getting worse, and more than half were dissatisfied with their political systems and job prospects.
The pandemic is going to make inequality worse. In wealthy countries, the public health and economic burdens of the crisis have fallen disproportionately on poorer or minority communities. The millions of service jobs that will come back slowest — if at all — are held mostly by lower income workers. Where schools remain closed, the impact will be greatest on children from less affluent households that lack high-speed internet access or technology for remote learning.
At the same time, on a global scale, poorer countries will suffer a bigger economic blow than richer ones. Developing countries, many of which have thin financial cushions, are suffering a triple-whammy of collapsing exports, lower remittance flows, and evaporating tourism. The IMF is struggling to coordinate adequate relief.
Populists — of both the left and the right — tend to excel in moments of economic crisis and uncertainty. The Global Financial Crisis of 2008 was critical in reviving long-dormant European populist parties that would reshape politics in the years after. Now, consider that the World Bank forecasts the pandemic's economic impact to be more than twice as severe as the one that followed the global financial crisis ten years ago.
A "social explosion" awaits. As one prominent local journalist in Latin America recently pointed out to us, even before the pandemic her region was in the throes of massive protests over inequality. Now, with the pandemic projected to plunge 45 million Latin Americans into poverty, what was already a tinderbox is practically a fireworks warehouse.
What's more, economic anguish in slow-to-recover developing countries may also prompt fresh waves of migration towards richer economies — providing ample fodder for rightwing anti-immigrant populists who will, as Viktor Orban and Italy's Matteo Salvini have done, sound the alarm about migrants who will supposedly steal jobs and spread disease.
It's hardly a foregone conclusion that populist messages will resonate loudest. The European Union, for example, agreed over the summer to a massive pandemic bailout and reconstruction package meant to blunt the appeal of Euroskeptic populists. The outcome of the US election on November 3 could yet unseat the most powerful populist in the world.
Food for thought: Will the hardships created by COVID-19 give a bigger boost to populists of the right or the left? What do you think?