Modern Populism in Greece Manolis Mavrozah arakis, Sociologist, Political Scientist Stelios Tzagkarakis, Political Scientist Apostolos Kamekis, Political Scientist Financial crisis has connect ed Europ e with an obvio us common patte rn which cons ists the rapid ly rise of prote st parti es that challenge the establis hed political syste ms. The basic and new feature of these sche mes is the intense war rhetoric against the European Union and the vehement rejection of the selected modes of euro rescue. n this sense, populism appears as a new specter haunting European democracies, as active ris!, causing serious concerns. Unfortunately, the growing concern does not coincide with policies aiming at finding viable solutions, as the center"right parties and governments believe that the only solution to the crisis is to adopt austerity measures and Social #emocrats have not yet found effective alternatives. This ess ay wil l attempt to shed lig ht on some as pe cts of cur ren t pop uli sm phenomenon with particular focus on its modern manifestations. Firstly, it is useful to attem pt a classification of the concep t of popu lism. $ccord ing to Fran! #ec!eri populism is a strong stand against the status %uo , it appeals to lower social groups and it is a phenome non of soc ial crises of moderni& ation in the sense that there is a systemic review in nearly every form of economic, cultural and political development, using simplified shapes and models of analysis. n other words, a !ey feature of populism is the manichean method of addressing the problems and history at a blac! and white way of thin!ing. $ccording to that method, diver sity, comp le'ity , relat ivism, unce rtaint y, doub t, plura lism, rational argum ents and rationality should not e'ist. The speech is sharp and violent, devastating, blatant and addresse d to the collecti ve (we). n parti cular, stereotypes and views of traditional roles are used in order to achieve the ma'imum impact on a significant part of population which feel insecure. $ccording to #ec!er, populism and moderni&ation are nearly the same thing. $ different approach was introduced by Ernesto *aclau identifying (the dichotomy of the social field between privileged and underprivileged as a !ey feature of populism either from the left or the right of the political spe ctr um) ii . Popu lists call the disadvantaged for enlisting even outside the boundaries of institutional normality and claim their support in order to subvert the e'isting political system. n the concept of (people), according to this logic, only the non"privileged section of the society which bears the (ultimate virtue) and is not liable for any misfortune, is included. The enemy " friend figure, as once introduced by +arl Schmitt, revives a strange bipolar composition. n the one hand is the nation, the people, the underprivileged, our own, and on the other, the enemies of the nation, emigres, foreigners, the privileged, the moneylenders.
