More than two months of conflict. Demonstrations gathering three million people across France, universities and high schools blocked, and on April 10, within an hour, Jacques Chirac and Dominique de Villepin, by announcing the replacement of the First Employment Contract, ended this conflict. Following the analysis by Nice-Première on April 10, the editorial team decided to give voice to all Nice politicians who are willing to take it. After Dominique Boy-Mottard, Patrick Allemand, Jean-Christophe Picard, Bruno Dellasudda, and Robert Injey, it’s Rudy Salles’, UDF deputy’s turn.
Nice-Première: Do you see the modification of Article 8 of the Equal Opportunities Law as a victory of the street?
Rudy Salles, UDF Deputy: I consider the replacement of Article 8 of the Equal Opportunities Law as a triumph of common sense. It was high time that the Prime Minister heard the French people’s message. It was not normal for this crisis to last so long, causing considerable harm to society as a whole and deepening the gap between leaders and citizens.
NP: Is replacing this article with “a measure in favor of the professional integration of young people in difficulty” the right solution?
RS: I believe this is a makeshift effort to get out of an unprecedented social deadlock. It feels like a “save yourself” to make people forget what just happened. Honestly, even though I support a measure in favor of the professional integration of young people in difficulty, I’m waiting to see what it entails. For now, the parliamentarians are only informed of the government’s proposals through the press. These are not normal working conditions nor do they conform to the idea I have of how our institutions should function.
NP: Is an open debate, without preconceptions, between the government, social partners, and parliamentarians of all stripes on “securing professional paths, precarity, and the integration of young people into employment” really possible, or is it just a beautiful utopia?
RS: The debate should be open, transparent, across currents, hence democratic, as a rule. That is no longer the case today. The only debate is settled within the UMP among presidential stables. General de Gaulle had condemned the party regime, and now we are in the “single party” regime. Democracy is weakened, and the people are excluded. Furthermore, imagining that a year before the presidential elections we could restore this dialogue when it hasn’t existed since the beginning of the legislature is a utopia. It is high time to reflect on what we want to do with our institutions for the period that will open after the 2007 elections. Restoring meaning to democratic debate seems to me a priority that must be inscribed in the accomplishments of the future President of the Republic.
NP: Finally, if I say “CPE,” you respond?
RS: I think of it as a kind of “Social Clemenceau.” For two months, we’ve been telling the government that the decontamination of the Clemenceau in India would end in failure. The government refused to take our remarks into account, replying everything was fine aboard. We know the rest: facing India’s refusal, the President had to repatriate the Clemenceau, which had become a drifting ship. For the CPE, it’s somewhat similar. Two months ago, we told the government that, in the absence of dialogue with social partners and given the content of this text, this law would not pass. The government and also the UMP, which supported this project, gave us a flat refusal. And for two months, the CPE has been sailing through a turbulent social sea, heading straight for the first vessel it encounters. The captain onboard refuses to hear those who recommend returning to port. Finally, the President orders him to return and abandon a route that led nowhere. In the meantime, the storm has overwhelmed France and caused many injuries for some and disillusionments for others.
The moral of this story is that governments, whatever they may be, can do well or poorly, succeed or make mistakes, but when there is doubt, they must not persist. There’s then a step they cannot exempt themselves from—it’s listening to the French.
