INTRODUCTION

Extremism is a label covering a variety of behaviors characterized by goals and methods not shared by the majority of the people. Extremism is a matter of freedom in terms of personal choices and it becomes a social issue when it generates externalities. Progress in many areas, from science to politics, is due to people challenging the common values of their times (think of the abolition of slavery and of the extension of political and social rights). That raises the question as to whether the long-run interests of a community are better served by conformist or by critical individual attitudes. Too much conformity makes the lemmings' trap inescapable, 1 but systematic criticism generates uncertainty and can undermine the cohesion of the community. In the political case, democratic societies are supposed to reduce both risks while fostering open confrontations of ideas and modulating conflicts through adaptable rules. Yet, the relationship between domestic political violence and political and economic freedom is not univocal (Muller and Weede, 1990) and Hardin (1997) calls into question the ability of democracy in dealing with major conflicts.

Extremism, interpreted as a challenge to the existing rules and values of politics, is a phenomenon that features in any constitutional order, democratic or non-democratic alike, and its evolution. We circumscribe our analysis, however, and submit that in a more or less democratic setting the presence of extremist leaders posits a problem in so far as they show apparently steadfast attitudes and an unwillingness to compromise.