Did the populists succeed? Why or why not?

They did not succeed, because most of the people did not like their methods.

Populism was a type of political situation experienced in Latin America between the 1930s and 1960s, which had a major propelling context for the 1929 crisis. At that time, several of the Latin nations - seen as having a peripheral economy - lived through a period economic development followed by the growth of urban centers and the re-articulation of social and political forces. It was in the midst of these diverse transformations that populist practice gained ground.

Populist politics is marked by the rise of charismatic leaders who seek to sustain their activities within the state through the broad support of majorities. Often, he abandons the use of ideological or partisan intermediaries to seek in the “defense of national interests” an alternative to the political tendencies of his time, be they traditionalist, oligarchic, liberal or socialist. In different ways, it propagates the belief in a leader above any other ideal.

In the field of its practical actions, the populist tendency prioritizes meeting the demands of the less favored classes, placing this option as an urgent need in the face of the “enemies of the nation”. In fact, populism has allowed for the political participation of social groups that historically have been completely marginalized from Latin American political arenas. However, this type of action by the popular strata with the State cannot be confused with the exercise of full democracy.

One of the most striking contradictions of populism is to preach the approach to the people, but, at the same time, to establish a control mechanism that does not allow the appearance of political tendencies contrary to the current power. In such a way, populist governments are also marked by the dismantling of political oppositions and the exchange of “favors for the people” for unconditional support for the great leader responsible for leading the country.

In addition to authoritarianism and assistentialism, populist governments are also very concerned with the use of the media as an instrument to publicize government actions. Through the installation or control of these media, populism uses a massive official advertisement that seeks to spread itself among the most different social groups through the unrestricted use of radio, newspapers, magazines and television stations.

The rise of populist regimes has always been viewed with some suspicion by certain domestic or foreign political groups. The capacity to mobilize the masses established by such governments, the appeal to national interests and the lack of a clear political perspective could jeopardize the interests defended by the elites who controlled the ownership of the land or the productive forces of the industrial sector.

In this way, we can understand that populism went into crisis when it was no longer able to negotiate the interests - often antagonistic - of the economic elites and the working classes. When political and social tensions reached this point, we can see that conservative national groups sought international political support, mainly from the United States, to sweep away populism through the installation of dictatorships that emerged between the 1950s and 1970s.

i think it is the third one.

answer; ///any two strangers are likely to share many coincidental similarities;