In the mid-1970s, after decades  of political turmoil, 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.