Why France Says No - Article Example

Why France says "No" When France rejected the proposed European Union constitution, it not only threw a wrench into plans for closer European integration, it proved to be a humiliating defeat for the French government which was for the constitution. That France, a founding member of the European Union should be the first to reject the charter was a slap in the face for President Jacques Chirac. So why did the French, who are traditionally pro-European, say no' At first glance it did seem improbable, given that till now France had played a key role in shaping the form and direction of the European Union. France had enthusiastically embraced EU policies such as the 'Schengen' area of passport-free travel and the change of currency from the franc to the euro. Former French president Giscard d'Estaing was even Chairman of the Convention that prepared the draft treaty - a treaty which safeguards some of France's key concerns, including protection of the French language. (CER, 13 May 2005). Closer study showed that the French rejection of the treaty was a result of two trends: "a rising disenchantment with the EU, and a sense of crisis at home." (CER, 13 May 2005). This "sense of crisis" had been brewing for a very long time now. There is a deep-rooted pessimism about the country's economic and political future. Unemployment is at an all-time high, faith in the government's ability to get a grip on its labour market problems, at an all-time low. Today, the French are disillusioned with mainstream politics, frustrated by unemployment and disenchanted by social issues such as integration (or lack of it!) of immigrants into French culture. These issues have resulted in a lack of identity and isolation of the French youth, problems that spiraled out of control in a spate of riots in the November of 2005. Violence had erupted in France before, in the 80s as well as in Nov. 2004, and the November 2005 riots underlined the fact that the social and economic issues had degenerated and worsened over the past 20 years, gravely threatening France's formal commitment to "libert', 'galit', fraternit'". The riots were clearly symptomatic of a worse disease: that of the roles of race, religion and ethnicity in the fabric of French society, and the social and economic ostracism of immigrants. It also brought to the question France and its government's ability to tackle the problem of integrating immigrants into mainstream French society. (Cesari, 30 November 2005) Commenting on the riots, Mr. Chirac conceded that the wave of violence highlighted racial discrimination - a "deep malaise" within French society, and said that nothing long-lasting could be built without fighting this "poison of racism." The far-right leader Jean-Marie le Pen criticised France's immigration policies, saying that France was "paying the bill" for its "mad and criminal immigration from the Third World". (BBC, 15 Nov. 2005) No doubt the center of the unrest lies within France's suburbs with the perpetrators being mainly of North African origin. Despite France's efforts to assimilate immigrants into their society since the '60s and '70s, the Muslims part of Europe's fastest growing religion, have largely failed to integrate into European societies founded on secular principles. The recession of the 1970s with its unemployment, the stigmatization of urban ghettos and increasing number of school dropouts, drug abuse, combined with union problems and political uncertainty, only serve to exacerbate the issue. The "integrationist" policy of the mid-80s started to show wear and tear when right-wing political leaders began to play on public perceptions that immigrants were responsible for increased crime. (Cesari, 30 November 2005) With racism becoming a political issue, immigrants found themselves at the centre of a notion of national identity which excluded them, and the pressure on them to conform to French behavior and traditions increased, culminating in the 2003 action plan and policy that required the estimated the 100,000 legal immigrants arriving in France each year to sign an "integration contract" upon arrival to obtain a temporary residence card. To make the permit long-term, immigrants were required to provide proof of their "integration into French society." Immigrant advocates, including the nonprofit League for Human Rights, have denounced this policy as one that "turns foreigners into undesirables by making life precarious for those who are called upon to remain in France." (Zappi, 1 October 2003) This brings us to the question of what exactly does it mean to be French today' The tradition of immigrant integration "' la fran'aise" is being questioned, but how else can the pot pourri of race, religion and ethnicity that is France find common ground, if not on universal values based on republican, secular and equal citizenship' Sami Nair, deputy of the European Parliament and a University Lecturer in Political Science, insists that "The foundations of the Republic are not negotiable. They must not be, since they are the expression of a fundamentally egalitarian and tolerant conception of men and women." He further points out that historically France has been multi-ethnic, showing a very progressive attitude towards the rights of foreigners. "This immigrant population is a source of great human, intellectual, artistic and cultural wealth: wasn't the only woman in the world to win the Nobel Prize twice, Marie Curie, an immigrant of Polish origin'" This open-doors policy towards immigrants is supported by the French effort to 'assimilate' the new entrants into their society, to grant them access to citizen status and recognize equal rights and duties for every individual. In return, it assumes a "commitment to common values" while assuring them "absolute freedom in the domain of private life." Following naturally from the secular nature of the republic, it guarantees the French citizen the freedom to follow his personal beliefs, thus showing respect for his cultural links and personal identity. French secularism is in fact 100 years old. In 2005 France commemorated the centenary of its 1905 law which instituted the separation of church and State, reaffirming the principles on which the pact is founded: freedom of conscience, equality between citizens and fraternity. And thus, the state religion came to an end bringing to a close centuries of conflict between the Church and the political powers. (Gazsi, 7 Sept. 2005) Since the 1789 revolution, when the dominion of the Church was absolute, the clergy had remained in violent opposition to the Republic. Even as late as the 18th century, the Church held a sway, not only over established powers, but also over political, academic and artistic spheres, and down to personal space where social morals and conscience existed. Thinkers and philosophers from the humanist Renaissance (16th century) and the philosophy of the Enlightenment (18th century) opened the minds of the people and made them determined to free themselves from the power of the church. (Gazsi, 7 Sept. 2005) It was with this background that the French secularism firmly took hold, and the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, which proclaimed that "No one shall be disquieted on account of his opinions, including his religious views, provided their manifestation does not disturb the public order established by law." was ratified by law in 1905. (Gazsi, 7 Sept. 2005) Considering how fiercely the French fought to free themselves from the Church and the confinement of religion, to pursue their personal beliefs, it is strange that they should fan the flames of immigrant displeasure and alienate them by measures such as the banning of religious apparel in schools. Weil, one of the policy's architects argues that it is not anti-Muslim prejudice that lies behind this ban, but secular, liberal reasoning. The issue at stake was that the wearing of headscarves, or other such symbols, was much more than an expression of personal freedom. Public schools had become a battleground for fundamentalist groups to enforce their beliefs. Children, at their most vulnerable in schools, were being browbeaten to follow religious diktats, which many of them did not adhere to, which is why the ban concerns only public schools and not universities or elsewhere in the adult world, where there is no question of forbidding religious display. (Weil, 2 March 2004) In fact, France was in precisely the sort of situation it was trying to avoid through its "integrationist" policies - a disintegration of society into culturally distinct communities that threaten the country's national identity. But, are the differences of culture and ethnicity the only problem here' Or do they merely complicate the differences that already exist in economic and social spheres' Cesari, author of "When Islam and Democracy Meet: Muslims in Europe and in the United States" brings this marginality in the context of urban degradation, alienation of specific groups of peoples, in terms of the politics of integration. She says that constant exclusion of this group tends to conflate the issues of poverty, ethnicity, and Islam, both in current political discourse and in political practice. "The recent violence is but the direct consequence of the constant amalgamation of these three separate issues." The world is watching, and outside France the world press is of the opinion that France is fiercely anti-Semitic. A view further endorsed by an increase of anti-Semitic violence since October 2001, and the surprise election of Jean-Marie Le Pen of the far right National Front Party. The fear is clearly mirrored in France itself, with 1.3 million people demonstrating against Le Pen on 1 May in Paris, the majority expressing a similar fear - that of a revival of traditional French anti-Semitism.. (U.S.-France Analysis Series, July 2002) But this does not mean that anti-Semitism no longer exists in France. Though traditional anti-Semitism is on the decline, the number of threats and incidents of anti-Semitism clearly demonstrate that France accepts, and even condones the "everyday anti-Semitism" that still exists. What is more worrisome is the growing trend of anti-Semitic violence, perpetrated by young North African immigrants who suffer from racism and xenophobia. "This new form of anti-Semitism (called "la nouvelle jud'ophobie" or new Jew-phobia in recent book a by Pierre-Andr' Taguieff) has its roots in the current crisis of French society." (U.S.-France Analysis Series, July 2002) This manifestation of the urban violence that plagues French cities is the result of the social and spatial segregation of the North African immigrants. Ethnicity, for the younger generations, simply means racial discrimination and social exclusion, which goes hand-in-hand with the loss of cultural identity. Which means, that though the lifestyle of second- and third-generation immigrants in France have little to do with an "Arab" or "Algerian" way of life their background remains a constant blot on their escutcheon, a stigma that stays with them in their day-to-day interactions. "In effect, these young people are victims of the "post-colonial syndrome," in which an Arab or Muslim background becomes a symbol (loaded) with all the negative imagery built up over decades of colonialism. In this way, social marginalization is also consistently reinforced by cultural inequality. (Cesari, 30 Nov. 2005). Not surprisingly their frustrations erupt in the spate of violence France is witnessing today. In the European context, these are major issues that need to be resolved first, before France can continue to exercise its traditional leadership within the EU. France needs to overcome the fear that its influence and vision of Europe is waning in a larger, looser and more liberal EU. The majority of French voters of course are more worried about the liberalisation of services across the EU, which could cause immigrants from the new member states and, in the future Turkey to steal their jobs, and their cherished social rights. (CER, 13 May 2005). On the whole though, there is optimism about the future of France. "France is one vast construction site of integration." (Nair, Jan. 2000). It has after all, withstood many crises, from the revolution of 1789 to the current crisis of the global social system and is adapting, slowing but surely, resulting in a new Frenchmen and women, who, through their origins, will make France live even more strongly in the world. Works Cited Cesari, Jocelyne (30 November 2005) Ethnicity, Islam, and les banlieues: Confusing the Issues. Retrieved 23 Jan 2005 from The Social Science Research Council website: http://riotsfrance.ssrc.org/Cesari/ Chirac in new pledge to end riots (15/11/05) Article from BBC news on President Chirac's speech on riots in France. Retrieved 21 Jan 2005 from: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4437206.stm d'Appollonia, Ariane Chebel. (July 2002) The National Front and Anti-Semitism in France. Retrieved 21 Jan 2005 from US-France Analysis Series at: http://www.brookings.edu/fp/cusf/analysis/chebel.pdf French Government Revives Assimilation Policy (October 2003). Retrieved 21 Jan 2005 from Migration Policy Institute: http://www.migrationinformation.org/Feature/display.cfm'ID=165 Gazsi, Melina (No.60, 2005) One Hundred Years of French Secularism Retrieved 21 Jan 2005 from Label France magazine website: http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/label_france/60/gb/10.html Nair, Sami. (Jan 2000). The Challenges of Immigration. Retrieved 21 Jan 2005 from Label France magazine website: http://www.diplomatie.gouv.fr/label_France/ENGLISH/DOSSIER/2000/07immigration.html Weil, Patrick. (25/3/05) "A nation in diversity: France, Muslims and the headscarf" Retrieved 21 Jan 2005 from: http://www.opendemocracy.net/debates/article-5-57-1811.jsp What happens if France votes No' (April-May 2005). Retrieved 23 Jan 2005 from CER website: http://www.cer.org.uk/pdf/briefing_france_no_may05.pdf Read More