The country has not mobilised in this way since the Liberation in 1944. For 48 hours French society, in its infinite diversity, took hold of the streets, and, in a symbolic sense, took power. At least three million, and possible three-and-a-half million or even four million people demonstrated on Sunday, in Paris and the rest of the country too. Even before that some 800,000 had already taken part in spontaneous gatherings.
At this stage one can only make some hasty conclusions about this almost unprecedented civic awakening, this giant democratic wave that has just swept through the nation's towns. Yes, some people demonstrated for very different, even opposing reasons. Yes, simply being together in no way means being in agreement. Yes, this apparent national unity can in no way be equated to the “sacred union” wanted by some politicians. Any attempt to hijack this demonstration, any desire to reduce this civic outpouring to a handful of political slogans will be doomed to failure and ridiculed.
Enlargement : Illustration 1
The cartoon above is entitled: 'Alternative ending'. Police: 'Surrender and you have the right to a reintegration programme and civics lessons'. Gunmen: 'Yes ok, we're aware that our vision of living together could be improved.'
The immense gathering in Paris, where there were no political slogans or partisan demands, was just like the demonstrations in the regions. And despite the diversity it seems there were some common factors: a rejection of terrorism, of course, and of hatred and anti-Semitism equally; the dignified expression of a refusal to be be dragged down by sickening debates that only make divisions in France worse, for sure. These common factors were summed up by the only real messages that were on display at the Parisian march: “I am Charlie, I am Jewish, I am the police, I am the Republic.”
How so very long ago it felt on Sunday (in fact it was less than a week) that public broadcasters France 2 television and France Inter radio had felt able to invite the novelist Michel Houellebecq onto their prime time programmes to discuss his latest work Soumission (' Submission'), to stir once more the pot of infamous anti-Muslim fantasies. The civic outpouring of the weekend, in all its diversity, will ultimately demonstrate one key demand: to raise up the country, raise up politics and raise the level of public debate that, too often, has been taken over by mediocre provocateurs.
The mere fact that this demand has been expressed is a considerable victory. First of all it largely undermines the arguments put forward by all those who called on people not to march, who claimed that the demonstrations had been hijacked in advance and that the national unity was simply there to serve the political powers. What this argument overlooks is that the awakening of society always takes place against the 'sacred unions' and against any unity that is just for show. It also ignores the fact that this weekend's demonstrators, who are not fooled by the high-minded or small-minded calculations of our politicians, did not march with the political leaders – not to mention some of the apprentice foreign dictators on show – but light years away from them.
Indeed, this mass rising of citizens did not just take place without these dignitaries. It also rang out as a warning to such political leaders, who are nearly always late to grasp change in society because they are paralysed by their own opportunistic calculations, not to mention petty political games of alliances and electoral considerations. The challenge for political leaders and, first and foremost, the government, is to raise up this country and to grasp what is being demanded of them. These demands are only a broad outline, but they have been claimed with some force.
Will François Hollande and Manuel Valls entrench themselves in a vision inherited from the American neocons after 9/11, as they have consistently done since 2012? Will the country be taken back to the era of the 'global war on terror', which was the message conveyed at the march on Sunday by nearly 50 heads of state and government? This is a war that has been fought for years and systematically lost. It is a war which is illustrated by what seems to have been an enormous fiasco by the police and intelligence services in their inability to have been able to anticipate the attacks in Paris, with the loss of 17 lives, and their failure to be able to arrest these three terrorists alive.
Another way is needed not only to restore our security but also to prevent new divisions, to keep alive this mobilisation of citizens and to revitalise our democracy. To open oneself up to that means taking risks, something which the Hollande presidency has refused to do since May 2012. It means pushing aside this 'sacred union' - which is generally just used to take power away from the citizens – and rebuilding a political programme which speaks to society rather than the 'markets', the credit agencies and major economic players.
It means creating a genuine policy against anti-Semitism which has nothing to do with support or non-support for the Israeli government. It will involve inventing new ways to include people at a time when entire population groups – and not just Muslims – are today pushed to the margins and are victims of massive discrimination, or feel as if they are. It means giving responsibility and visibility to minorities who are today excluded and who are always called on to prove they are part of the nation.
“We'll only get out of this through a political revolution,” says philosopher Marie-José Mondzain in an interview with Mediapart (see here, in French). She adds: “In France there's a fundamental breakdown in the distribution of learning and equality of opportunity.” That is what is at stake for François Hollande in the coming weeks. He either considers this citizen uprising to be just a passing moment, rather like the outburst of national unity that greeted France's victory in the football World Cup in 1998. Or he uses it as a means to reinvent a political programme. There's certainly a very slim likelihood... Not to do so would not only mean reducing a weak government’s chance of survival. It would also increase the risk of greater divisions taking place and help boost once against the merchants of fear and the extremists.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- The French version of this article can be found here.
English version by Michael Streeter