For the analysis of the topic, it is necessary to start with a comparison brought from the sports world, but that can be applied, keeping its proportions, to other daily activities, especially those related to political activities. The difference between the fanatic and the supporter was clearly manifested in the fans and in the broadcasts and journalistic analysis of the final match of the Qatar 2022 World Cup between Argentina and France. When comparing the manifestations of Argentines and French, the following could be observed: for the French chroniclers and commentators it was a very important match, especially to measure the state in which French football really found itself. The issue, before the match, was always analyzed from the perspective of wanting to support the French team, in a measured way, with analysis of those elements that favored or disadvantaged a possible French victory.
What has been exposed contrasts with the position assumed by Argentine journalists. For them, it was not literally a World Cup final game, but, as they repeated many times, “we were facing the end of the world”; the life and honor of the Argentines depended on that team extolled as a kind of laurel in the football Olympus.
In this case, the measured and reflective aptitude of the supporter is differentiated, with the irrational posture of the fanatic. Situation that was noticed with more truth, once the game was over, because while the French chroniclers admitted that it had been a great game, excellently played by the Argentines, they described their team as a kind of supernatural envoy and described the game as the absolutely best played in the history of all world cups. This is the reflection of the fanatic, who believes he possesses a unique and incontrovertible truth and considers that history is collected in a single instant. After all, for the fan, it was not the final game of the World Cup, but the end of the world. It might be worth asking that fan, for example, about other matches, like the 1970 final between Brazil and Italy.
The commented case serves as support to analyze the difference between the supporter and the fanatic, in other fields of human activity, for example, in politics. The partisan ideology many times embodied in a kind of messianic dictator, originates a blind fanaticism, which denies any debate or discussion about the ideas of the party or the leader. It is irrationality brought to political work.
Something different happens with those ideological movements, which, within constitutional pluralism, are supported by ideas or a doctrine, but allow their supporters, in addition to their logical loyalty to the leader, to retain the possibility of questioning and proposing within the the organization, different approaches to those conceived by the person or persons leading the respective movement. It is not a question of blindly following a caudillo or leader, but of discussing a pattern of conduct that agrees with a previously established ideology.