Populism, populist. Maybe the two most commonly known and applied words in articles nowadays in the field of political science. The current wave of populist political actors such as Trump, Le Pen, Orbán or Grillo have triggered the redefinition of a long-term used phenomenon. In my paper I argue that populism can be both a destructive and an innovative element of the democratic systems. Then I turn my attention to the possible definitions of populism. Reviewing the literature I have concluded that the three main possibilities of defining the phenomenon are: (1) populism as an ideology, (2) populism as a tool or strategy, (3) populism as a political communication style. Meanwhile all three dimension are widely used and criticized applying them at the same time would definitely cause misunderstandings and misconceptions. As a “thincentered” ideology populism tends to be stuck with radical ideologies thus making it to be feared and dangerous. Meanwhile as a tool of mobilization the analysis focuses more on the output of populist strategies. As a communication style the whole concept of the word populism should be forgotten as an ism instead of it the main focus is on defining populist elements in the communication of political actors. However applying the latter possibility one could discuss all parties as populists but with different types or with different levels, it is still better strategy then only identifying who is populist. It can give us a more detailed picture about the use of populist rhetoric not to mention that it makes the whole concept of populism neutral
