On Sunday July 23rd the director general of France's national police service (DGPN) gave an explosive interview to Le Parisien newspaper. Four police officers in Marseille have been placed under investigation for allegedly beating up a young man, and police chief Frédéric Veaux said he regretted the fact that one of them had been remanded in custody. “Knowing that he is in prison is stopping me from sleeping,” he declared.
“Ahead of any possible trial, a police officer has no place in prison, even if they may have committed serious mistakes or errors in the course of their work,” continued the police chief. “We need to have the technical and legal means to allow this officer to be freed,” he added. His words were later backed by the head of the Paris police, Laurent Nuñez.
In the hours and days that followed, many politicians, especially on the Left, expressed their indignation at these comments. However, politicians from the ruling majority declined publicly to share their concerns; for Macron-supporting Members of Parliament, criticism of the police is more of a taboo than ever. Speaking on television during his trip to the Pacific region, President Emmanuel Macron did not directly join in the criticism either. He simply stated while he understood the “emotions” of the police after having to tackle the recent unrest, “no one in the Republic is above the law”.
Mediapart spoke to Sebastian Roché, director of research at the CNRS public research institute, about the comments by these two senior public servants that are unprecedented during France's Fifth Republic – and without parallel in other European democracies. A specialist on the police and security issues, he is the author of 'La Nation inachevée. La jeunesse face à l’école et la police' ('Unfinished Nation. Young people confronting school and the police') published by Grasset in 2022.
Mediapart: The two most senior police officers in France have just questioned decisions made by the legal system concerning their men. How serious is this?
Enlargement : Illustration 1
Sebastien Roché: I don't see any precedent during the Fifth Republic of an alliance between the two most senior police chiefs to publicly challenge a decision by the legal system and, more broadly, the general legal principles enshrined in the Constitution. Let's remember that equality of all before the law features in Article 6 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. It's a fundamental pillar of democratic states: there can't be those with privileges, as there were under the Ancien Régime.
Frédéric Veaux and Laurent Nuñez have issued a double challenge, by commenting on active proceedings and by not caring about the separation of powers and the guarantee of equality before the law. Their declarations breach the very principles of a democratic police force, which is supposed to be neutral and act in accordance with legal principles. They seem to see themselves as a fourth power, that of a police administration, which has a say in the working of judges and the making of laws by the assemblies. It's staggering.
Mediapart: When questioned about this on television on July 24th Emmanuel Macron referred to the importance of the rule of law but did not condemn the comments by the two senior public servants, preferring to highlight the police's tough working conditions. How would you judge that reaction?
S.R.: While reminding us that he is the guarantor of the institutions, the president gives the impression of not really recognising or at best not fully grasping the nature of a transgression which is unprecedented in the Fifth Republic. How can he play the role of arbiter if he ignores the malfunctions?
When he says that he doesn't want to comment on the remarks made by the director general of the national police, that raises question marks. If the head of an administration can't pronounce on the comments of its officials then what is the role of that political authority? This phrase conveys his political weakness and fragility. It's as if he were saying 'I'm not the boss'.
It's worth pointing out, incidentally, that in the rest of his televised interview he announced a number of decisions in other sectors of public policy. But he didn't even comment on the remarks made by the police chiefs. He's not alone in that by the way. The prime minister has said nothing, nor has the justice minister said anything… it's a chorus of silence.
Mediapart: As for interior minister Gérald Darmanin, he has expressed his 'confidence' in the police's director general.
S.R.: The minister of the interior has clearly let this happen. But the fact that he has not associated himself with the public declarations of his two highest officials is very puzzling. He is the person in charge politically.
Mediapart: It's not the first time that the legal system has been challenged by the police. One recalls the slogan from the police trade union Alliance 'The problem with the police is the legal system', which was delivered in front of the National Assembly on May 19th 2021. Have there been other noteworthy occurrences? In what ways were they different?
S.R.: There have been protests by police officers and gendarmes before, with a constant theme in terms of the language used, to highlight their fatigue and lack of resources. In 1958 they complained that a bonus linked to the war in Algeria had disappeared. In 1983, after the murder of two police officers by the far-left group Action Directe, they protested under the windows of the justice minister Robert Badinter, who had repealed the death penalty and anti-rioter legislation. They did the same in 2015 with [justice minister] Christiane Taubira. In 2016 they marched down the Champs-Élysées, quite illegally.
With the declarations by Frédéric Veaux and Laurent Nuñez we've gone up a notch.
The demonstrations in front of the National Assembly in 2021 were marked by the presence of the Paris police prefect [editor's note, the chief of police for Paris, who in this case was Laurent Nuñez's predecessor Didier Lallement], who came to join the union protests at the place where the nation's representatives sit. But at the time he was still following Darmanin's lead. It was a public servant operating in the background of the political leader.
With the declarations by Frédéric Veaux and Laurent Nuñez we've gone up a notch. They've taken the liberty of making a media pronouncement without cover from their political authority. As if they had taken the place of the political authority. And no one reacts, whereas in 1983 [President] François Mitterrand fired the holders of these two same posts, as they had failed to respect the authority of the state.
I see here the mark of a police democracy in which we hand over to the police – or we let them appropriate – exceptional resources and prerogatives.
Mediapart: Several academics and political leaders, including Jean-Luc Mélenchon of the radical-left La France Insoumise in our columns, have highlighted the 'fear' the government feels towards its own police force. Some speak of a drift towards praetorianism. What do you think?
S.R.: The unions depend on their rank and file who are not happy. In the hierarchy they're clearly trying to please them by criticising the rule of law but they're still staying loyal to the political authorities. As for the minister of the interior, he's trying to tread the narrow line defined by the president of the Republic: not to tolerate the most blatant demonstrations of racism and violence, and at the same time say nice things about the police.
I have studied authoritarian regimes so I remain measured in the descriptions that I use. Fundamental rights have been gnawed away at and I'm critical of that, but there is no full-frontal assault on the entire legal system. Saying that the police should have special protection is not the same as putting half of the judges in prison.
Mediapart: Indeed, but can we imagine a government really deciding to reform the police? Would they manage to do so without alienating the forces of law and order?
S.R.: The police have a duty of loyalty, it's a basic principle of all democracies. That said, as a political scientist I note that it is a force that can exercise influence on the government. The issue is knowing just how far this pressure can go.
When the government has used its authority in the past the police have not risen up. In 1983 François Mitterrand 'cut off heads'. That happened again in 1997 when the government of [socialist prime minister] Lionel Jospin introduced local policing, which at the time led to strong resistance. That approach still remains possible: there are loyal people to occupy positions of responsibility and I don't believe that a union has the ability to impede the working of mainstream institutions.
The president of the Republic is simply making a political calculation. He judges that giving assurances to the police delivers more for him than not giving them. Even at the risk of ill treating the legal system.
Mediapart: In an interview filmed by Mediapart following the 'yellow vest' protests you spoke about the risk of the “South Americanisation” of the police. Have the past three years confirmed your fears?
S.R.: We've not seen a return of the same level of fragmentation and chaotic action. The police are no longer as disjointed in their operating methods. But what has persisted since that period has been the strategic decision to move towards a police force that's on the 'offensive'. In the demonstrations against the pension reforms this was shown by the carrying out of preventative arrests, the restrictions placed on the freedom of the press and also the use of illegal kettling. And serious injuries, still, to demonstrators.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
- The original French version of this article can be found here.
English version by Michael Streeter