Contemporary political leadership can be described as neo-leadership based on the leader’s personality supported by innovative technologies. This means a departure from marketing-oriented leadership towards one determined by the leader’s activity, which is not fully managed by image experts. The development of social media has made it possible for leaders to be permanent creators, senders, and recipients of political content. The mistakes they make make them more credible, and the narrative, apart from political correctness, increases their attractiveness. The ground described in this way is an excellent place for the development of populist leadership. A lot has been written about populism in recent years because it is an extremely aggressively developing phenomenon. However, there is no answer to the fundamental question: to what extent are populist leaders responsible for the success of entire parties? The success is easily measurable, that is, it translates into support in elections at various levels and the ability to maintain power. Central and Eastern Europe is a special place for populist movements and their leaders. The experience of dependence on the USSR had not only a historical but also a mental impact. It is in this part of Europe that it is easier for populists to attract the masses because the values of liberal democracy have not yet had time to take deep roots. A review of the most characteristic examples of populist leadership in Central and Eastern Europe allows us to discover whether there is a common DNA of populists and to try to answer the question of what’s next for populist groups and their voters.