The article examines the phenomenon of populism as a complex interdisciplinary object of analysis situated at the intersection of political science and jurisprudence. It emphasizes the complexity of the conceptual definition of this notion in modern scholarly literature, where populism is interpreted as a political style, a communicative strategy, or a socio-political syndrome. The aim of the article is to identify specific threats posed by populism to the state’s constitutional order and to substantiate the institutional mechanisms of constitutional self-defense that allow for the protection of the democratic legal order within the framework of legitimate democratic procedures. To achieve this goal, a comprehensive interdisciplinary methodology is employed, including comparative-typological, institutional, and hermeneutic-legal methods, as well as the method of legal modeling. The paper demonstrates that populism acquires particular significance for legal science when political rhetoric transforms into real actions aimed at undermining the state’s institutional architecture and the principles of the rule of law. The mechanisms of so-called “authoritarian legalism” are analyzed, through which democratically elected populist actors can use legal instruments to dismantle the system of checks and balances. Particular attention is paid to the phenomenon of the repoliticization of state institutions and the threats of digital populism, which are amplified by algorithmic mechanisms of shaping public discourse. As a result of the study, the concept of “constitutional immunity” is proposed as a model for the institutional resilience of the democratic legal order. It provides for a multi-level protection system, which includes normative immunity (protection of the substantive core of the constitution), procedural immunity (creating temporal and procedural barriers to the rapid transformation of institutions), and interpretative immunity (institutional pluralism in defining the content of the “will of the people”). It is concluded that the combination of these mechanisms ensures a balance between the openness of the democratic political system and its capacity for self-preservation in the face of the populist challenge.

Authored books

1. Heinisch R, Holtz-Bacha C, Mazzoleni O, Political Populism: Handbook of Concepts, Questions and Strategies of Research (2nd edn, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft 2021) 595 https:// doi.org/10.5771/9783748907510.

2. Levitsky S, Ziblatt D, How Democracies Die: What History Reveals About Our Future (Penguin Books 2019).

3. Mudde C, Rovira Kaltwasser C, Populism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford Academic 2017) 96 https://doi.org/10.1093/actrade/9780190234874.001.0001.

4. Mller J-W, What Is Populism? (University of Pennsylvania Press 2016) 164 https://doi. org/10.9783/9780812293784.

5. Urbinati N, Democracy Disfigured: Opinion, Truth, and the People (Harvard University Press 2014) 320 https://doi.org/10.4159/harvard.9780674726383.

6. Savchyn M, Suchasni tendentsii konstytutsionalizmu u konteksti hlobalizatsii ta pravovoho pliuralizmu (RIK-U 2018) (in Ukrainian).

Edited books

7. Gagnon A, Stockemer D, ‘Populism’, In: Stockemer D, Sawyer S, Gagnon A (eds), IPSA Companion to Political Science (Springer 2026) https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-06918-4_6-1.

8. Laclau E, ‘Populism: What’s in a Name?’, in F Panizza (ed), Populism and the Mirror of Democracy (Verso 2005) 32–49.

Journal articles

9. Brubaker R, ‘Why Populism?’ [2017] 46 Theory and Society 377 https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11186-017-9301-7.

10. Bugaric B, ‘The two faces of populism: Between authoritarian and democratic populism’ [2019] 20 German law journal 390–400 https://doi.org/10.1017/glj.2019.20.

11. Loewenstein K, ‘Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights’ [1937] 31 (3) American Political Science Review 417–33.

12. Loewenstein K, ‘Militant Democracy and Fundamental Rights’ [1937] 31 (4) American Political Science Review 638–58.

13. Mudde C, ‘The populist zeitgeist’ [2004] 39(4) Government and opposition 541–563 https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x.

14. Pasquino G, ‘Populism and Democracy’ [2005] Italian Studies Seminar Series: Special Lecture Series 7–37 (accessed: 11.03.2026).

15. Scheppele K L, ‘Autocratic Legalism’ [2018] 85 University of Chicago Law Review 545–584.

16. Spruyt B, Keppens G, Van Droogenbroeck F, ‘Who supports populism and what attracts them to it’ [2016] 69(2) Political Research Quarterly 335–346 https://doi. org/10.1177/1065912916639138.

17. Urbinati N, ‘Democracy and Populism’ [1998] 5 Constellations 113 https://doi. org/10.1111/1467-8675.00080.

18. Urbinati N, ‘Political Theory of Populism’ [2019] 22 Annual Review Political Science 111– 127 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050317-070753.