Abstract

One of the key features of the phenomenon of populism should be considered a high level of personalization of politics, a close relationship between the spread and level of impact of the populist movement and the personality of its leader. This feature is not, of course, extremely characteristic of populism because charismatic leaders can run for leading positions defending the system of values, far from the populism of any sort - conservative, for example, or a career within the inflential organizational structures with a strong tradition, for example, such as the church. However, populist movement almost always charismatic leadership is a must. On the other hand, in an open, public political struggle populist rhetoric techniques and appear strong, and sometimes necessary tool. Important actors on the political scene of Athens were like during the struggle aristocracy and demos, as well as in strongly institutionalized democracy, demagogues - leaders or leaders of the people. Obviously, is wrong to equate the activities and are very important for the political struggle in the ancient polis oratorical practice all «popular leaders» of demagoguery in the modern sense of the term. In the end, there was even a demagogue Pericles. However, it was in their activities can seem to see bright and examples of demagoguery and populist methods of political struggle. These are some historical and political subjects belonging to different epochs occurred in very different social circumstances and conditions. Nevertheless, they lead us to the conclusion that the charismatic type of political leadership, which by its very content related primarily to appeal to the emotions, even the subconscious of people, is the most populist technologies related to political inflence. However, these stories give grounds to assert that populist willingness to oppose direct public institutional and procedural component of democracy in practice almost inevitably leads to concentration of mass by expectations of political action in the face of a charismatic leader. The nature, scope and results of operations of the leader and his supporters can be very different - from a particular transformation of a democratic system that is in crisis.