Greece finally seemed to be on the path to stability.

With the introduction of a new constitution

and negotiations underway to enter European institutions,

many analysts expected Greek politics

to follow the pattern of the larger Western world.

Then in 1981, a political party called PASOK came to power.

Its charismatic leader Andreas Papandreou railed against the new constitution,

and accused those in power of “national betrayal.”

Opposing Greece's membership in NATO and the European Economic Community,

Papandreou promised to govern for the betterment of the “common people"

above all else.

He famously declared, “there are no institutions, only the people exist.”

Papandreou's rise to power isn't a unique story.

In many democratic countries around the world,

charismatic leaders vilify political opponents,

disparage institutions, and claim the mantle of the people.

Some critics label this approach as authoritarian or fascist,

and many argue that these leaders are using emotions

to manipulate and deceive voters.

But whether or not this style of politics is ethical, it's certainly democratic,

and it goes by the name of populism.

The term populism has been around since Ancient Rome,

and has its roots in the Latin word “populus” meaning “the people."

But since then populism has been used to describe dozens of political movements,

often with counterintuitive and sometimes contradictory goals.

Populist movements have rebelled against monarchies, monopolies,

and a wide variety of powerful institutions.

It's not possible to cover the full history of this term here.

Instead, we're focusing on one specific type of populism—

the kind that describes Papandreou's administration

and numerous other governments over the last 70 years: modern populism.

But to understand how political theorists define this phenomenon

we first need to explore what it's responding to.

In the aftermath of World War Two,

many countries wanted to move away from totalitarian ideologies.

They sought a new political system

that prioritized individual and social rights,

aimed at political consensus, and respected the rule of law.

As a result, most Western nations adopted a longstanding form of government

called liberal democracy.

In this context, “liberal” doesn't refer to any political party,

but rather a type of democracy that has three essential components.

First, liberal democracies accept that society

is full of many, often crosscutting divisions that generate conflict.

Second, it requires that society's many factions

seek common ground across those divisions.

Finally, liberal democracies rely on the rule of law

and the protection of minority rights,

as specified in constitutions and legal statutes.

Taken together, these ideals propose

that tolerance and institutions that protect us from intolerance,

are the bedrock of a functional and diverse democratic society.

Liberal democracies helped bring stability to the nations that adopted them.

But like any system of government, they didn't solve everything.

Among other issues, an ever-increasing wealth gap

led to underserved communities

who distrusted both their wealthy neighbors and their political leaders.

In some cases, political corruption further damaged the public's trust.

Growing suspicion and resentment around these politicians

primed citizens to look for a new kind of leader

who would challenge established institutions

and put the needs of the people first.

In many ways, this reaction highlights democracy in action:

if the majority of a population feels their interests are underrepresented,

they can elect leaders to change that using existing democratic systems.

But this is where assertive, modern populist candidates can subvert democracy.

Modern populists identify themselves as embodying the "will of the people,"

and they place those interests

above the institutions that protect individual and social rights.

Modern populists argue these institutions

are run by a self-serving ruling minority,

who seek to control the vast majority of virtuous common people.

As a result, politics is no longer about seeking compromise and consensus

through tolerant democratic institutions.

Instead, these leaders seek to overturn what they see as a broken system.

This means that where a liberal democracy has the utmost respect for institutions

like courtrooms, free press, and national constitutions,

modern populists disparage any establishment that disagrees

with the so-called “common will."

Modern populist parties have arisen in many places,

but the leaders of these movements are remarkably similar.

They're often charismatic individuals

who identify themselves as embodying the “will of the people."

They make exorbitant promises to their supporters,

while casting their opponents as traitors actively undermining the country.

But whether these politicians are sincere believers or manipulative opportunists,

the dynamics they unleash

can be profoundly destabilizing for liberal democracy.

Even when modern populist leaders don't follow through

with their most extreme promises,

their impact on political discourse, the rule of law, and public trust

can long outlast their time in office.