Our philosophers were not aware of the APF

In most of his works, Jürgen Habermas closer to the ethics of discussion of the proper functioning of democracy. With this approach, it extends the main critical reflections developed by Plato against the murky game of rhetoric in the Athenian democracy. These reflections to assess how are organized the debate between the three Socialist candidates.

Our philosophers were not aware of the APF. This organization scrupulously ensures the distribution of the time between majority, opposition and Government. In the election period, it monitors the time reserved for each candidate. On the other hand, his mission cannot be to verify the media presence of the three candidates to the appointment by the Socialist Party. However we must that the inequality of opportunities is obvious. When Ségolène Royal, Dominique Strauss-Kahn and Laurent Fabius have announced their candidacy, media treatment was very uneven. The first made the covers of "Gala" ("Ségolène diary"), "VOD" and "Paris-Match". As soon as the following weekend, the photo showed only one of the "world" as in that of the "Sunday Journal". This promotion or these kinds of publi-reports to add polls giving the one potential winner against Nicolas Sarkozy. When it comes to designate a candidate able to defeat the right in the second round of the presidential election, it is clear that the three candidates are not on the same starting line. Can organized debates restore this imbalance and reduce the handicap of Laurent Fabius and Dominique Strauss-Kahn It is in this regard that the reflection on the rhetoric and democracy makes sense.

Even if the basement of the Socialist project is common, three candidates, the first are three different personalities and three unique directions. The monologues in meetings which preceded the Organization of these internal debates could not satisfy the Democrat. The monologue is seeking to persuade more than to convince. It should be noted that Socrates refused to write any book, a book is just a monologue, written, and we know him as the dialogues where Plato the staged. The Act of persuading is a real danger to democracy. It is, for Plato, constitutive of rhetoric: he must flatter the people, be nice, the charm, and give pleasure in consideration that it pretends to grant even though, in fact, viewed as a passive receptacle.

The philosophy emphasizes convince insofar as the other is considered as a rational actor able to contradict, to argue. The very idea of "con - defeating" evokes a common victory, while the idea of persuading suggests an influence which traverse the individual (per), returns completely focusing more manipulation, the sensations or feelings from the reason, at the risk of inducing a volatility or instability of the opinion, instead of convincing also advertising is located entirely in the persuading since the transmitter is for a silent receiver. Of course, even as citizens, we remain human beings of flesh, emotional and sensitive, but that it puts more emphasis on the convince or persuade him, we play the demagoguery or democracy respectful and responsible unflattering and, ultimately, dismissive.

Hence this subsequent question: the juxtaposition of three monologues is a democratic progress on the defects of the lonely monologue Yes, because the best is never far from the worst. Note that this issue cannot be reduced to the internal debates of the Socialist Party. Our democracy well require debating between the majority and opposition, as this could be the case when required programs such as "Face to face" or "has equal." "The moment of truth" itself took advantage of the estate of journalists able to stimulate invited personality. But today, politicians who agree to publicly confront their opponents are very rare. They apply to themselves the devastating forms of zero risk and the precautionary principle. It was surprised to hear sometimes lead to the risk to undertake when measured their caution in the political debate. The "com" abhor risk!

In fact, the parallel monologues do not really improve the quality of public debate. They are more comparative advertising of the discussion. After each session, auditors assess the capacity of seduction of each competitor, but not at all the reactivity of each, the ability to discuss, or even the strength of the arguments.

In the discussion, everyone wants to learn. It can be satisfied to hear an argument of quality and progress in the development of his ideas. The ethics of the discussion is specific in the televised debate because the débateurs are intended for citizens over the shoulder of their opponent. Each proposed argument can be contradicted by a quality objection. Also the adversarial appears as a risk in which each agrees "to danger", as you said. In the debate, you look, it examines, it captures the hesitations, the disorders, the strength and the weakness of the arguments and examples, but also the character which is not negligible for the highest Office of the State.

Journalists who would organize could resume some ethical principles of the discussion. For example, they could in time to penalize those who interrupt and steal the floor without leaving another complete followed by argument. They could intervene to refuse traps such as handed Francois Mitterrand to Jacques Chirac in 1988 alluding to private conversations (case Gordji). Indeed, in these circumstances, when the ethics of discussion is not respected, the interest of the democratic debate turns into its opposite.

Journalists, in each of their media support can therefore play a decisive role in our democracy. This is not the case if they comply with the rules imposed by this or that candidate in refusing the confrontation. At a minimum, they should let us know, because the refusal of the adversarial is a democratic regression. It is a decoy to consider that the discussion with citizens, selected Panel, is of the same type of debate. Policies are professionals who can discuss playing, while the citizens are not adept at parliamentary or electoral jousting. The Presidential Office is made of multiple discussions with professionals of national syndicalism or foreign countries. The discussion and argument are at the heart of political activity, especially in a democracy.

While a candidate may "have not reply at all", but, precisely, the democratic confrontation may allow it to fill its gaps in being persuaded by his interlocutor. Public debate is enriched with these exchanges that allow citizens to evaluate the arguments and the people. And one can dream, in a democracy, the ballot is more determined by the ethics of discussion by the raw opinion in polls.