WHEN DEMOCRACY IS NOT WHAT ‘THE MASSES’ WANT

higher public legitimacy level than a democratic one. It used the Fujimori and Toledo regimes as case studies The methodology involved applying (neo)populism, democracy, democratization, and ‘hybrid’ regimes theory to understand the mechanisms that allowed Fujimori to legitimize his regime, and that (supposedly) prevented Toledo from doing so. The analysis found that a combination of factors were favorable for Fujimori and working against Toledo. While Toledo’s luxurious lifestyle alienated him form the masses, he was unable to concentrate the amount of power that Fujimori did. Hence, the Fujimori regime could approve ‘popular’ reforms that increased public support, which could then be used to gain more power. This ‘vicious cycle of legitimization’ that kept the Fujimori regime in power was unavailable to Toledo, who never enjoyed the sufficient popularity to get it started. Aside from the presence of populist elements and the use of ‘hybrid’ regimes, there were other factors affecting the public legitimacy levels of the regimes. These are: the role of crises, public weariness with neoliberalism, the international community, the Fujimori legacy, and Peruvian civic culture. While Fujimori enjoyed a favorable context for a populist, the opposite was true for Toledo. Arguably, then, his neopopulist tactic was destined to fail. The study concludes by outlines its contribution and areas for further research.