I agree with you, when you express that in Latin America is living asymmetrical power situations.

The effect of having a more inclusive society in the formation of public policy occurs for greater government legitimacy.

Similarly, Latin American leaders attract the attention of the people by including them and although they do for their benefit, this situation encourages citizens to feel that they are part of the government.

In short, governments gain legitimacy and citizens consider to be really important part of the government management.

I see that we can analyse this in different levels. On one side, we can see the benefits for the government, on the other side, we can see if people are getting an understanding of their rights, recognition inside the political community, and more spaces for participation. So, maybe it is not only popular feelings or only perceptions, and maybe populism is a complex phenomenon that has been stigmatised. Of course, there are many risks with populism that it is necessary to investigate more. I think I have to explore more legitimacy, thank you for your comment.

Appropriate consider its approach. Only I commented the benefit to the state representatives, however, also have to make concessions.

In Latin American populism, I think both parties get benefits and reciprocal concessions are made.

On the government side, again, gain in legitimacy ... however, the concessions they make are:

1. They must recognize and protect human rights more adequately.

2. They allow the creation of NGOs, which are responsible for pressuring the state to fulfill public submissions.

These two main issues are the benefits that citizens get the Latin American states.

Finally, I agree with that populism is a complex phenomenon that has been stigmatized.

Congratulations on your approach and research.

The populism can be inclusive, but wears political institutions. This results in the customization of an impersonal nature element and timeless as it is the State...

Institutions are really important, but institutions must be useful for people. Sometimes there is a path that allows institutions to favour a few and neglect others. I think populism tries to change the status quo particularly in Latin America where there is a low citizenship (O'Donell) but the problem is what are the new institutions? more power to the leader, o more power to the people, what kind of power? Populism is viewed more in terms of the personalistic leaders, but I think it is necessary to shift the view towards people.

a comparative study can be useful. for example between Iran and Venezuela. the election mechanisms and the power structure of these two developing country is a good project for your research. considering authoritarian culture among people and its relations with government structure or political parties can be a good model. I think when we talk a bout populism we should pay enough attention to Anomie. structural anomie and feeling of anomie is a base for populism and political culture (Arendt and Kornhauser's implications) and effects on election process. if this condition occurred in a society with tribalism foundations the relations between civic society, government and populism get more complicated. relationship between anomie, authoritarianism and political culture can be a base for these researches.

you can see my profile, i have some publications about the anomie, authoritarianism and political attitudes.

El populismo tiene éxito porque es “ignorancia en movimiento” aplicada a la política: en sociedades con amplios sectores descontentos y problematizados por la enormidad y velocidad de los cambios sociales y económicos que se están produciendo, sus promotores adoptan un discurso de ignorantes dirigido a los sectores electorales más irracionales e ignorantes, a los que prometen un retorno imposible hacia un pasado de gloria imaginario.

El populismo propone una confrontación radical entre “pueblo” y “élite”, pero ni define pueblo ni define élite, sino que se limita a trazar una trinchera entre “los que están conmigo” = “pueblo” y “Los que están contra mí” = “Élite”. Los populistas no conocen otra forma de debate que la agresión y la descalificación. No respetan opiniones distintas, que para ellos son solamente “traiciones”. No pueden tolerar ninguna forma de crítica ni reconocer ningún error; cualquier desastre que provocan es culpa de “conspiradores”, “antipatriotas”, “periodistas mentirosos”, etc.