“We are going to take ownership of this debate on national identity,” thunders Ghaleb Bencheikh. Listening to the President of the World Conference of Religions for Peace this Saturday afternoon, October 31, at the symposium organized by MOSAIC, the young secular federation of citizens with a Muslim inclination, the debate on “national identity” seems to have already been launched. In a skillful mix of irony and more fiery remarks, the host of the renowned Sunday religious program dedicated to Islam met the expectations of a Muslim community determined to participate actively in future discussions proposed by the Minister of Integration. A theme the always eloquent speaker explicated: a “sedimentation on a mother rock,” but a “sedimentation consolidated by other contributions.” While castigating the “hierarchs” accustomed to “buffets of petits fours in the palaces of the Republic” and who “chase after decorations, indifferent to the youth,” Ghaleb Bencheikh questioned the real causes of this debate, perceiving among those who initiate it a form of “trauma”: “we sympathize with their condition,” declared the amused, recognized Quran scholar to the hearty applause of the audience.
Far from this intellectual approach, Dounia Bouzar, an anthropologist of religious phenomena and co-author with her daughter of a book on religion in the workplace (“Does Allah have a place in the company?”, Editions Albin Michel, 2009), highlighted all the difficulties related to managing beliefs in the private sector. She thus proposed a “series of criteria to treat Muslims like others” in their workplace, mentioning throughout her demonstration, examples such as the wearing of religious symbols in relation to “hygiene,” “dietary prohibitions and concentration” at the office, or “the management of ritual festivities” in task organization. Rejecting “both demonization and laxity, two sides of the same coin,” Dounia Bouzar nonetheless acknowledged the necessity of addressing these issues “on a case-by-case basis.” While acknowledging a “suspicion of otherness on Islam,” she added, “being a secular Muslim is both a challenge to Salafists and to some politicians.” Responding to a public question on violence in suburbs, she clarified that this violence, contrary to popular belief, resulted rather from “overintegration of republican values marked by the observation of inequalities.”
Relatively few in the stands of the Mediterranean University Center, young people were nonetheless the main subject of reflections among the speakers. Most of them denounced “social inequalities” and “discrimination” that the suburban youth, according to them, suffer as “victims.” These young people were called by Aziz Senni, founding president of the “Business Angels for Cities” investment fund, to resolve this “rift between the suburb and France, creating a two-speed country.” He notably proposed two measures: that companies located outside tax-free zones could benefit from the same fiscal arrangements if they hire young people from these areas, and obliging banks to record in their balance sheet the amount of money actually loaned to young businesses. Two proposals aimed, according to him, at promoting youth employment. “We are not all heirs,” he stated, alluding to Nicolas Sarkozy’s son. Furthermore, he urged this youth to “engage,” reminding them that “one has the right not to like the society in which one lives,” provided they do not remain inactive. Finally, he concluded, “France, you love it or you change it.”
Much more moderate, the intervention of the MOSAIC Federation president on the theme “Let’s build together the future of our children” referenced the American president Barack Hussein Obama’s electoral slogan: “Yes we can.” A city councilor in Christian Estrosi’s team, Marouane Bouloudhnine thus laid out, in a proximity-based philosophy, a series of themes as “action axes to be implemented by the federation’s twenty-three regional offices.” Offices “under construction,” he clarified. “Move away from any victimization,” “take charge of our destiny,” “avoid being confined to reductive debates about the veil and the burqa,” “focus on the cultural and spiritual space,” “prioritize exemplarity,” “advocate moderation in a context dominated by community radicalization logics,” and “present one’s convictions through dialogue, not violence,” were all leitmotifs aimed at becoming the interlocutor of institutions and public authorities.
More unexpected, recognizing his own “faded presence in the debate,” was the participation of the Nice Public Prosecutor on the theme “He who knows is responsible for he who does not know,” which turned out to be more political despite the speaker’s preliminary denials. Notably, through the introductory words that sparked a particularly enthusiastic ovation from the audience: “I warmly greet all the Auvergnats present.”
Even though he “understands the aspiration of these French of Muslim sensitivity,” Eric de Montgolfier preferred to question more broadly the risks related to the categorization of individuals: “after women and homosexuals, should we open a new cage?” wondered the magistrate. He notably lamented that “France has no sense of sharing,” or rather “a particular sense: the city centers for the wealthiest and the outskirts for those who disturb.” “Justice cannot rectify the injustices of society,” he continued, before acknowledging that these “injustices question the global passivity of the citizens of this country.” Driven by the sentiment that the debate on national identity “began this day,” he questioned: “is it a fixed framework in which we are requested to enroll” or otherwise “to leave?” This notion of national identity, Eric de Montgolfier sees rather as the “foundation of an ideal of living together in mutual respect, where everyone could contribute their innermost qualities, provided they align with the general interest.” While urging for this debate, “the imperative need to define the notion,” he wished for “the most essential in the Republic’s motto, Fraternity” to be respected. Before ending with a mobilizing phrase: “Remember it, otherwise the Republic will only be a religion!”
At the closing of the proceedings, Marouane Bouloudhnine invited attendees to meet again on April 2, 2010, in the Senate for further discussion with the “Republican Committee of the Ile de France Region.” An announcement of “timing” comes as public authorities have not yet unveiled the national and local organization of these discussions. And ultimately poses a question: can the government claim to remain the instigator of a national event that already seems to escape it in scale?
