Nice-Première: A year ago: the suburbs crisis. With hindsight, what analysis do you make? What were the causes? How can we address the unease and poor living conditions in the suburbs?
Sébastien Franco: The suburban crisis is, above all, the result and symbol of Sarkozy’s catastrophic and ineffective policy. We have even renamed his new law as the “law for the provocation of delinquency”. There has been a 15% increase in violence against people since 2002. His spectacle policy has no positive effect. On the contrary, the causes, such as social distress, precariousness, academic failure, ghettoization, and discrimination against young residents in these neighborhoods, are exacerbated by the stigmatization exercised by the Minister of the Interior/UMP President/President of the General Council of Hauts-de-Seine/Presidential candidate.
To remedy the poor living conditions in the suburbs, we must directly address these causes. In opposition to Sarkozy’s bill, we propose “prevention-repression-reparation/reintegration.” A whole series of measures can be considered. For example, the return of community policing seems essential to me, especially since it was beginning to show results. To combat discrimination, a special brigade must be created within the national police. In schools, we need adults, not police officers as the right envisions. Above all, a true policy of social diversity is necessary, and the SRU law must be revised to make it more binding. The fight against ghettoization passes through this.
Romain Mouton: Sébastien, you’re not in a good position to lecture on security when, between 1998 and 2002, while the left was in power, delinquency increased by 14.5%, and in 2001 France exceeded the threshold of 4 million reported incidents. Should we remember that between 2002 and 2005, delinquency decreased by 8.8% and that since Nicolas SARKOZY has been the Minister of the Interior, there have been 1 million fewer victims? The Left’s angelism and permissiveness disappointed the French, punishing the Left by excluding it from the second round of the presidential election. Remind me who established community policing? And who took away its investigation, inquiry, and arrest missions?
Sébastien Franco: It’s a shame that you use ready-made answers without really reading what I say. And no, there is no angelism in what I said! Don’t clumsily bring out the notes from the 2002 presidential election that your friends must have given you.
Especially since the obligations to “make figures” in police stations make it increasingly difficult to file a simple complaint. Is this how you conceive the fight against insecurity? Through a clever but dangerous manipulation of figures?
On the left, we are well aware that this social issue is serious, especially when the right does not hesitate to use it to stigmatize a population it has already put in distress.
Romain Mouton: France is out of breath. It is suffering in its suburbs, sensitive districts, and all its areas where their residents are left on the sidelines. We must renew a social pact based on sound values: work, merit, and respect. Thus, Nicolas Sarkozy has proposed two main measures: positive discrimination to give more to those who have less and chosen immigration rather than suffered. I add that the law on the prevention of delinquency will also ensure security for the French. The State must guarantee each and everyone the possibility to live serenely.
Sébastien Franco: You’re talking about Sarkozy’s latest law. When will he have the courage to tell the truth to the French about his record and assume the 15% increase in delinquency against people since 2002 and the failure of withdrawing community policing? Positive discrimination is about separating each community and pitting their members against each other. It is abandoning the republican ideal of equality and delegating social justice to communities. What will happen to mixed-race people?
Romain Mouton: Nicolas Sarkozy inherited a Ministry of the Interior that, with the socialists, preferred words to actions and accused the French of living in a feeling of insecurity rather than real insecurity. Since 2002, the numbers have remarkably improved. The French are aware of it and now want the State Minister to engage in true comprehensive reforms, affecting all areas of society. Positive discrimination consists of giving more to those who have less. It is a source of social mobility and merit promotion in neighborhoods where hope no longer exists. We fight against all forms of communitarianism that harm the unity of our Republic.
Nice-Première: Let’s go back to spring with the CPE. Is it a victory for the left and a defeat for the government?
Romain: Neither. It’s rather a failure of social dialogue. I think it is necessary to encourage employees and employers to unionize and then engage in effective discussions with social partners. There is a need to acknowledge, dialogue, and then decide.
Sébastien: Do you still consider it just a matter of form? How can you remain deaf to the rejection of ultra-liberalism expressed by the youth last winter, a rejection that echoed May 29?
Romain: The agitated minority of last winter in no way represents the silent majority of young people who work, are high school or college students, and whose only concern is obtaining their diploma to find a job. Most young people have understood that you can only succeed in life by working. Success is earned!
Sébastien: This movement was a great democratic breathing moment inspired by the youth. It should be remembered that it was political youth organizations like the MJS or the JC but also trade union ones with UNEF or young CGT members and associations that mobilized and led with them students, high schoolers, and young workers or those looking for their first job… Naturally, the proximity of the Presidential elections added a real stakes to this showdown, and the government’s uncompromising stance showed the harshness of this unbridled right that has been waging a real war against its youth since 2002, trying to render it servile. Moreover, if it is considered a government defeat, it is primarily due to its attitude and the desire to remain deaf for three months to the calls launched by the youth. I also don’t forget that it is the entire government that is involved since the CPE was included in the UMP’s program.
Romain: Sébastien, the problem with the left is always wanting to instrumentalize young people instead of making them reflect on the real issues. The Left manipulates youth without getting to the heart of the debate. It’s regrettable.
Sébastien: I hope you don’t think that youth consists of brainless individuals who need a few leftist organizations to go down in protests, strike, gather to organize. Because if you think that, let me tell you that’s not how it works.
If you think that doing politics, advocating, discussing, convincing the youth consists of instrumentalizing them, I think you have a negative vision of your passion. Besides, how do you explain, then, that you yourself changed your mind on the CPE, as seen on your blog? I refuse to think that I could have manipulated you.
Nice-Première: This crisis highlighted the fears of the youth. They need to know why they are studying, reassured of the usefulness of sitting on school benches. What are your ideas to reduce youth unemployment without adding more precariousness?
Sébastien: “Defend our right to the future” was one of our slogans during that period. Today, there’s a real malaise among the youth and genuine concerns about its future. We are the first generation to live worse than our parents. And youth no longer tolerates the promised precariousness upon graduating. We need to secure youth socially with an autonomy grant for all young people in training and integration. It is a unique, universal, and fair aid. This autonomy allowance should be complemented by other measures: aid and support for finding the first job, reduction of job precariousness, ongoing training reform to ensure better training of young people in companies, framing of internships, etc… In short, a true voluntarist policy.
Romain: Assisting the young – is that what the Left calls voluntarism?! The youth aren’t even workers yet, and they’re already being assisted by society. I’ve already expressed my wishes in this area. Sébastien, how does the Left plan to finance the billions of euros this new allowance would cost? Why remain deaf to the expectations of the French who can no longer bear the fiscal pressure? How can the Left educate a society through assistance?
Sébastien: You have the right to consider it assistance. In that case, you have the duty to assume having an ultra-liberal program and to explain it clearly to people instead of hiding behind false pragmatism.
Half of the funding for the autonomy allowance, as we envisage it, will be financed by removing the tax half-share for adult children. Each young person will fill out their tax return. Families will be free to recover the equivalent of their tax half-share if they declare giving this amount to their children. The latter would declare the same on their side. For families without the means and who are non-taxable, nothing changes except that young people will no longer have to work to finance their studies.
As for the fiscal pressure that, according to you, the French can no longer stand, it is its unequal form that is contested, notably with the reduction of income tax for the wealthiest classes since 2002.
Romain: To reduce youth unemployment, it is crucial to adapt training to the job market. What about all these courses leading to nowhere? Do you think all those thousands of students in psychology will end up as psychologists? Certainly not! We must direct young people towards promising fields, revalue vocational and technical courses, and break down the barriers between the educational and work worlds.
Sébastien: Breaking down the barriers between the educational and work worlds, what does that mean? Restrict university courses to immediate industrial needs, thus confining students to an employment pool? Isn’t the solution rather in the material and social support of graduates during their entry into the job market?
Romain: There lies our difference: I believe in motivating youth towards autonomy through work, while you and the left prefer to accompany by assisting, which increases French taxes!
Nice-Première: This crisis has shown that it’s difficult to reform the labor code. Can we, and how, dare to change things in France?
Romain: The French don’t fear change; they expect it. It’s all about method. You must know how to identify a problem, engage in dialogue with social partners to find a solution, and finally decide on a measure. For this, the social partners must be as representative as possible. Therefore, I am in favor of massive unionization of employees.
Sébastien: On this point, I rather agree with you; it is indeed a key point of the socialist project. How do you explain, moreover, that your side in the government often disregards the words of the unions?
Romain: There is no disregard. The President of the Republic has reaffirmed his will to strengthen social dialogue. We must not confuse unions that propose and build with those that destroy and are more concerned with their electoral score in union elections.
Sébastien: This question implies, under the guise of pragmatism, that no reforms can be made in France. This is completely false. When a government tries to precarize youth without consulting it for a moment, as happened with the CPE, things naturally go wrong! In this case, it was about favoring employers without any counterpart for future employees. One cannot conduct politics without discussion, without listening. The left must show its difference also in the method it employs for its reforms.
Romain: You are not answering the question. Precisely, what is the Left’s method? What does the Left propose to change France? What is your model of an ideal society?
Sébastien: The left defends democracy as a fundamental value. Democracy, of course, is the Parliament, and the Left, as it did under the Jospin Government, will not use the 49-3 and will respect the work of the Deputies. That’s already a significant change.
But democracy is also social democracy and permanent dialogue with unions and associations. You know, the associations that the Right disregards and kills slowly by cutting their funding and, the latest scandal, forcing them to pay when they appear in public spaces. Nothing will be done without this permanent dialogue. It is precisely for this reason that the MJS has included in the socialists’ project the holding of an annual conference on wages.
Political will is to set the directions to follow. Political courage is doing things with citizens and not with pals.
