And this is how a tronche becomes very cathodic

Georges Frêche is exemplary, everyone is in agreement. But of what There are disputes. And while the commentators oppose or is emberlificotent, the Tribune in his fief plays provocations. It confirms that flirt with racism and xenophobia is set up the hearing. Its doubtful chips are screens of laptops, antennas of radio, newspaper columns, TV trays. And this is how a tronche becomes very cathodic.

It recognizes however, as soon as you look closely, a very ancient figure of life policy - an old character as democracy: the demagogue. Like her, he began his career in the streets of Athens at the Vesiècle before our era. Its name, coined in the language of Homer and Plato, means: that which leads (agôgos) people (demos). To become influential, it applies to people: "rogue voice, language of les halles", says Aristophanes, in "The riders", comedy where he denounces Cleon, one of the most maligned amongst Athenian politicians. The character is not in the shade, saying its critics: "I clouerai you by land" or "I you arracherai eyelids."

Enemy of the great Pericles (-495,-429), hero educated and democratic, Cleon to hand him the authors of his time. Aristophanes, just to see, which States: "the demagoguery is not a man heard, or of honest character, requires an ignorant and an infamous." Thucydides executes it in turn in his of the Peloponnesian War and Xenophon the portrayed as violent and dangerous. Since Cleon does not merely of toying with the people in the direction of the hair, the charm with large and stupid tricks. It embodies a more formidable evolution of the demagogue: speaking on behalf of the people, but to say the worst. Both speaker, speaker of the sewers, this man change the people in populace.

This refusal front is enough unanimous to appear suspicious. Although historians are are used, to Cleon and his ilk, to qualify the judgment. This is another constant of the demagogue: there always lawyers, both literally and figuratively. Plagued by controversy, it is also regularly rehabilitated, more or less, the objective study. His villainy seems to depend on the gaze is on him, the light available. You never know with certainty what is his mask and what is his face.

The reason is simple and terrible: between Democrat and demagogue, the border is often indistinct, difficult to trace accurately, and therefore controversial. They are similar, such as dog and Wolf, sometimes. At the time, clearly mark the boundary between the standard and the excess, in the field of public speaking, frequently resembles a jigsaw puzzle. Demagoguery is not inescapable destiny of democracy, as his opponents, beginning with Plato believe. But it is its permanent risk, its always possible drift, that must be constantly fought.

However, it is still too easy to make the demagogue only an eternal figure. Character of the democratic stage, its ability to nuisance is not the same in the past and today. Manufacturer of rumours, ourdisseur of real and fake conspiracies, diffuser of small phrases and Grand illusions, the demagogue depends on those who spread his word. In ancient villages, its power was large but limited its scope of action. In the excitement of the Web, radio and TV, what he said to diffuse, proliferating, seethes, interferes and is well beyond its Township.

The demagogue of today therefore ronge minds well otherwise than yesterday. He disrupts, in the distance, pawns normally out of his reach and broadcasts air of slander on large surfaces. None of this is really good omen. Even if tomorrow, in all likelihood, he did remain not much, the collateral damage remain unpredictable.