Display:
I think there is much too chew on here. Whether or not these riots are in fact riots is beside the point. Indeed, in some ways its worse if this kind of thing is actually normally happening.

This is my take, and I think this will be controvertial, but I want it to be that way. Its not a question of the welfare state. Clearly the problem is deeper and more structural than that, and I think it goes to the very heart of the French notion of republicanism. IMO, the republican ideal is a very "modern" (in the technical sense) concept (indeed, perhaps a hyper-modern construct) in a post-modern world where the kind of unifying narrative and assumption of the fundamental similarity of people is no longer viable. Strangely, this is exactly how the neo-cons think too, and it is why they think you can invade a country and "remake" a culture, indeed a region, in an American image. Indeed, there is much about the French republican model that the American right would like - ie "color blind," all individuals are basically the same, they must conform to some kind of model of "Frenchness," etc. Its not for nothing that neo-cons are often called "Jacobins," as too are those who favor a centralized state-model in France.

I think the proof is in the pudding here. The French republican ideal is simply incapable of dealing with a multi-ethnic society, and as such, I think it has to be rethought to provide a more flexible, decentralized polity. (and I don't mean in terms of economics, I'm going deeper here) Actually, although Sarkozy is an opportunist and a thug, he actually has some ideas along these lines. From an outsider's perspective, Sarkozy actually talks some sense - in terms of his willingness to challenge "laicite" fundamentalism (which to American center-leftist, seems to be a ridiculously dogmatic policy) and to suggest affirmative action programs for Arabs and Africans.

As to the French left, I think you are being slightly unfair. As some above point out, the left has not really been in power much since WW II. And under Mitterand, there were some sensible moves to devolve power away from Paris and towards the regions. Likewise, as Jerome notes, when Jospin was PM, he made some common-sense policing reforms, devolving police responsibility to a local level, which Sarkozy has since repealed.

The French left's problem is that is deeply divided between social liberals (basically, people who pursue ideas like the American Democratic Party, although this analogy isn't great, or perhaps the British Liberal Democrats) and anti-capitalists, who reject capitalism out-and-out. While many of these folks are in the Communist Party and various Marxist-type offshoots, there are a fair contingent within the Socialist Party itself. Witness the split over the referendum. If I had to take a guess, I would say that the second contingent is much larger. Thus, it becomes very difficult for the French left to get into power, and is the main reason why Le Pen was able to get into the 2nd round in 2002 (because the left split so many different ways). IMO, the near future for the left is not auspicious, because so many within the "left" refuse to countenance compromise with capitalism. As such, I wouldn't be surprised to see Le Pen and Sarkozy get into the second round in '02. Basically, the left can't get a substantive and dramatic challenge to the status quo together because too many of its voters and adherents are too wedded to it - in other words, to being anti-capitalists in a world where anti-capitalism is bankrupt. (no pun intended) Or, at the very least, it has no realisitc opportunity of presenting a candidate who will win over the nation's voters as a whole.

Fundamentally, I think it is going to take Sarkozy winning in '07 before enough people wake up. Sarkozy's brilliance is that he presents himself as the man with no-nonsense solutions to what pretty much most folks in France recognize is something of a societal malaise. I think there are other folks who can/could offer such a strategy of "rupture" outside of the right, but the above circumstances make it very hard for such alternatives to emerge. Because non-right wing politicians simply don't have a constituency for a kind of politics that would attack traditional shibboleths.

by Ben P (wbp@u.washington.edu) on Thu Nov 3rd, 2005 at 10:50:43 PM EST
I think you are totally right about the French "Republican Principle" and its inability to accomodate true ethnic diversity. The left really needs to have a debate on what a multicultural society is, not what it should be based on some "enlightened" ideal of human behaviour.

Personally I am wedded to the enlightenment ideals of reason and progress, but I realize that's just not the way real people operate. All I can hope for is enlightened, rational and progressive analysis and policy, but the first step in enlightened, rational analysis is to take a long, hard look at reality.

guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Fri Nov 4th, 2005 at 04:05:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

the French "Republican Principle" and its inability to accomodate true ethnic diversity.

That "inability" thing is crap, and it is only coming from our current inability to look at thing beyond the next quarterly figures. Integration takes place over generations, and France is doing just as well as it did with Poles and Italians and others in previous generations. It's just that we now see Poles and Italians as fully integrated and don't remember the problems back then, and we see the more recent North African immigrants are only partly integrated and as a "problem".

Here's one graph, I fully intend to come back with more:

This shows that while there are real differences between immigrants and natives, there are almost none between sons (in this graph, but this also applies to daughters) of immigrants and sons of natives.


In the long run, we're all dead. John Maynard Keynes

by Jerome a Paris (etg@eurotrib.com) on Fri Nov 4th, 2005 at 04:29:45 AM EST
[ Parent ]
What is the difference between "employés" and "ouvriers"?

And in any case, don't you really need a graph showing incomes, not occupations?  All this really shows is that immigrants' children are less likely than their parents to be "ouvriers".  I know of no data suggesting they earn the same as whites.

by tyronen on Fri Nov 4th, 2005 at 04:25:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Employé means tertiary sector, i.e. clerks or service sector workers, while ouvriers is secondary sector, working in a factory.

Also, since most companies pay on a salary grid in France, salary is closely linked to function and diploma for most people.


Un roi sans divertissement est un homme plein de misères

by linca (antonin POINT lucas AROBASE gmail.com) on Fri Nov 4th, 2005 at 06:34:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Recommended Diaries
Occasional Series