In his book “Le différend”, J.-F. Lyotard says: “Politics is the threat of dispute. What is at issue in politics is the kind of discourse by which disputes arise from which civil war can always return, and does return. ” What are the conditions to allow the activist to continue to think despite or within ideology? This dilemma takes on the appearance of a formidable trap for the woman or the politician. Long-term ideologies are dead, politics has become a short-term business in which you elect men, not ideas. The Israeli rulers remain traumatized by a certain affair including that of the murder of Rabin (z ‘l).
If taking an interest in political parties may seem futile and very irrelevant, this is not a reason to lose interest in politics, in the philosophical sense, in the intellectual sense: in historical political currents and in what each political current carries like. values in a range from left to right no longer work. Would politics be subject to “ideological discord”, if at all it lends itself to reasoned debate? An untimely question with regard to the clichés maintained on political communication and the “end of ideologies”, supposed to have precipitated the depoliticization of democracies. The cleavage calls for a joint elucidation while remaining a “bone of contention” for the power to impose the relevant categories on reality. The ideological test should serve as a foil for any political decision that would bring democratic principles to a risk situation. Albert Jacquard, who has just died, said it very well: “a winner necessarily produces a loser”