The month
of May 2018 will mark the 50th anniversary of the “events”, as they are still euphemistically
called in France, of May 1968. There has
been some talk in the media about whether the anniversary should be celebrated
and if so how. Especially as most people old enough to remember them have images
of disruption and chaos uppermost in their minds. The mini revolution culminated
in what some consider a near coup d’état,
thwarted only by the failure of the student and workers’ movements to find
common ground and the reluctance of political leaders like François Mitterrand or
the leadership of the powerful (at the time) French communist party to exploit the
situation, overthrow de Gaulle and form a new government. After some initial hesitation,
President de Gaulle eventually put up a spirited defence of the regime he had founded,
dissolved parliament and won a resounding victory in the subsequent elections. The
political crisis at least was over by the end of June.
It can be
argued though that the effects of May 1968 are still being felt in France
today. It was after all a revolt against authority that had been brewing for
some time, similar to revolts in other western democracies during the same period.
A revolt against the authority of parents, teachers, bosses, the church,
political leaders and the powers that be in general. One of its best known
slogans was: “it shall be forbidden to forbid” (“il est interdit d’interdire”) Anybody like myself who brought up
children in France in the 1970s and 80s knows only too well that notions of
authority were profoundly different after May 1968 than in the 1950s and early 60s.
For better or for worse, previously imposed, and often grudgingly accepted,
authority gave way to widespread liberalisation in almost every area of
society, as the perceived balance of individual rights and obligations
underwent a radical shift. And so it has been ever since, so deeply ingrained
in the prevalent culture that nobody seems to notice any more. 50 years on however,
and particularly since the election of Emmanuel Macron to the presidency, there
are signs that the pendulum may be swinging back. Three examples come to mind.
The first
concerns reactions to the recently announced ban on the use of mobile phones on
the premises of primary and secondary schools from September 2018. Interviewed on
TV, a teachers union leader, clearly ill at ease with the proposed measure, claimed
that it would be difficult to enforce, referring to the need to “search pupils”
or require them to lock up their phones in individual custom-built lockers. In
a discussion about this over the Christmas turkey, one of my daughters-in-law,
born in 1977, the same year as Emmanuel Macron, and certainly no sympathiser of
the Front National, simply said this:
“why can’t schools just tell pupils that the use of mobile phones on school
premises is forbidden and if they are caught using one it will be confiscated?
That’s what they do in privately run schools and I know for a fact that it works!” My conclusion from this brief exchange was that at least one 40
year-old parent today is not convinced that forbidding should be forbidden, nor that
authority cannot and should not be exerted, and respected, when it serves a specific
purpose.
The second example
concerns the on-going national debate about the reform of unemployment
allowances and vocational training. Under the current system, a job seeker is required
to accept a job offer or a training opportunity if his or her employment counsellor
judges it reasonable. After two refusals, the job seeker can be struck off the
unemployment register for two to six months. In addition, their allowances can be cut
but this decision can only be taken by a prefect, the direct representative of
the state. The sanction is hardly ever applied and therefore exists largely
on paper only. As part of the reform
being mooted by the government, the employment agency will be empowered to take
that decision itself. Unions and left-wing politicians have protested loudly
with hard-hitting sound bites like: “the government should be tackling unemployment
and not the unemployed”. In reality, fewer than 15% of job seekers would be liable
for this kind of sanction but the state has clearly been reluctant, so far at
least, to exert its own authority and apply the existing law.
The third
concerns the vexed, emotionally charged and infinitely more complex issue of immigration
and how to deal with the mass of migrants who end up in France and apply for
asylum here. France of course has a long and generous tradition of welcoming and
integrating foreigners, but the squalid and well publicised encampments in
Calais or under the bridges of overhead metro lines in different parts of Paris
suggest, at the very least, that the welcoming tradition is being overwhelmed
by sheer force of numbers. Again, the law is clear: once an asylum request has
been rejected, disappointed claimants should be returned either to their home
country or to the first EU country in which they landed. But again, the measure
is hardly ever applied. The vast majority of migrants whose asylum claim has been
rejected manage to stay on as illegals, making the situation of overcrowding
even worse and putting increased pressure on the authorities and the volunteer
organisations that do their level best to alleviate their plight.
Once again
it is the state that is reluctant to apply the full force of the law and use
the police to deport those who have been told they can no longer stay. President
Macron announced recently that he would tighten up regulations on migrants who
are not allowed, after due process, to stay in France. Predictably, political opponents
on the left have protested that France’s welcoming tradition is being trodden
underfoot and that that the police have no right to enter premises housing
immigrants in order to identify and arrest illegals. On the far right of the political
spectrum, the Front National has been
saying, with a smirk of satisfaction, that Macron is only about to do what it
has been advocating for many years.
In any
democratic society of course there must be public debate, and in France there
always is - and it is always heated - about the rights and obligations of the unemployed
or whether economic migrants should enjoy the same status as refugees from war
zones, on what criteria that distinction should be made and what should be done
about those who fall on the wrong side of the dividing line. That being said,
once the debate has run its course and legislation has been passed, a
government that does not apply it loses credibility and is rightly accused of
doing nothing – a charge that can be levelled at many governments since May
1968. During Nicolas Sarkozy’s presidency, for example, a number of brutal murders
were committed by convicted criminals who had been released on parole or whose prison
sentences had been reduced. At Sarkozy’s
instigation, and under pressure from public opinion, parliament voted no less
than six new laws in an attempt to prevent a recurrence of such events. The widely held view is that they have made precious
little difference to actual sentencing and parole practises, simply because
they are not applied.
By contrast,
President Macron has gone on record more than once as saying: “I will do what I
have said I will do”. During his presidential campaign he did indeed say that the
unemployed should be held to greater account in exchange for fairly generous
allowances and more recently that he will tighten up the immigration laws. Looking
back over his first few months in office, he has certainly not been afraid to assert
his authority. One remembers, for example, his very public dressing down of the
army’s Chief of Staff before the summer holidays (See my post: “Hail to the
Chief!” - July 16).
Perhaps he
will celebrate the 50th anniversary of May 1968 by reminding the French, in
word and deed, that the authority of the state is being restored and that he
will continue to set an example at the very top. A Head of State who was born nearly
ten years after “the events”, may finally be consigning their legacy to history!
No comments:
Post a Comment