Ancient Demagoguery and Contemporary Populism: Conceptual Analogies and Differences in Historical Perspective

Abstract

The association between contemporary populism and demagoguery is frequent, both in academic literature and political debate. However, the scholarly attention devoted to the latter is considerably less than that given to the former. This is a peculiar situation considering that demagoguery has been a primary concern for political thinkers since classical Greece. Even when not explicitly discussed, the question of demagoguery was an underlying concern framing discussions on pivotal themes like political leadership, public rhetoric, tensions between oligarchic and popular factions, and the nature of the best regime. This raises the question of how historical conceptions of demagoguery align with contemporary theories of populism and whether relevant differences between them can deepen our understanding of both phenomena. The first part of the article reconstructs the classical conception of demagoguery focusing on its treatment by two of its most influential theorists, Plato and Aristotle. For them, demagoguery was a corrupted political form in which popular power turns into tyranny under unprincipled leaders exacerbating divisions between popular and oligarchic factions. Building on this historical analysis, the second part of the article compares the ancient conception of demagoguery and contemporary theories of populism focusing on the three primary aspects around which the current debate revolves: ideology, political style, and institutions and forms of organization.