Of the nation France and democracy

History – and in particular political history – seems to be a major play on President Sarkozy’s speech. The defense of national identity and the rejection of the “ self-paving The two rhetorical pillars constitute. Several leftist historians (especially in a recent work, How Nicolas Sarkozy rewrites the history of France) criticized them with virulence. More global, since the Taubira law of 2001 defining transatlantic trafficking as a crime against humanity and since the law of February 23, 2005, whose article 4 defended aspects “ positive From colonization, the history of the French nation and its immediate implications have returned to the public debate forcefully. Several historians have also mobilized against the “ Memorial laws », In particular through two initiatives, Freedom for history (established under the patronage of René Rémond in December 2005) and Vigilance committee in the face of public uses of history (animated in particular by the authors of the work cited above). Manifesto, petitions, books and positions have multiplied for a few years in terms of the use of history for ends deemed militant or partisan.

As part of this burning debate, Vincent Duclert, professor at theEhess And specialist in the Dreyfus affair, does not hide its very hostile position to the President of the Republic and in particular to the Ministry of Immigration and National Identity. The collection of texts he offers to illustrate the “ democratic identity From France is preceded by a substantial introduction. This begins with a steep question: “ How to define France ? Indeed, he underlines, the last presidential campaign made national identity a capital subject of the public debate and the arguments of the two main candidates. Duclert hardly criticizes what he calls the “ neo-nationalism “By Nicolas Sarkozy, stressing that the presidential speech, arc-bouted on the” French identity », Is more reductive than that of his predecessors under the V^e Republic, which had highlighted the primacy of the Republic, with all the related elements (heritage of the Enlightenment, human rights, tradition of opening, etc.). Not that General de Gaulle or Mitterrand ignored the nation: as the author points out, they carefully embedded in the Republic. Sarkozy’s neo-nationalism, which draws from one of the traditions of the hexagonal right (Maurice Barrès in particular), is opposed in contrastaccording to Vincent Duclert, to the central element of the “ democratic identity From France, universalism, the ability to promote rules and a common identity ignoring the attachment to the land and a closed culture. France, he emphasizes, first has a corpus of rules, rights, aspirations and ideals that have shaped its history, its political culture and ultimately its republican functioning.

The author deepens his analysis by dissecting the main innovation of this discourse, the Ministry of Immigration and National Identity. Vincent Duclert thinks that the rapprochement of these two concepts symbolizes the rupture brought by Sarkozian rhetoric. Indeed, the elements external to the nation (foreigners) would be opposed to anhistoric data, detached from any context and closed on itself. Analyzing the presidential discourse and the action of Brice Hortefeux, in charge of this unprecedented ministry, Duclert wishes to demonstrate the intellectual, identity and political displacement that sarkozy neo-nationalism induces. The reference to the nation thus sweeps away political cleavages (hence the use of eclectic references, from Jean Jaurès to Guy Môquet) while putting the republican heritage which constituted the base of the political game.

The collection of texts is organized around six themes that appear to Vincent Duclert as so many foundations of the “ democratic identity From France: historical fidelity, philosophical origins, the commitment of philosophers, the affirmation of rights and freedoms in France, the French Republic in search of democracy, the rights of the man and the citizen. The selection of texts or extracts of text (signed by the Enlightenment, the Founding Fathers of the Republic or the great figures of French progressivism, from the political world or that of the letters) is used to illustrate the purpose and the argument of the author. The intellectuals engaged in the Dreyfus affair are notably highlighted. Vincent Duclert, again, does not hide the political orientation of his choices, the authors from republican progressivism (like Gambetta and Buisson) and democratic socialism (like Jaurès and Camus) being abundantly cited. In the powerful conclusion of his speech, faced with its accusers, at the Riom trial in 1942, Léon Blum recalls that the Republic is the history of France:

“” We do not put a presumption of it, but we bring a certain pride there: in a very perilous, personified and invigorated time we have the authentic tradition of our country, which is the democratic and republican tradition. From this tradition, through history, we will have been a moment. We are not I do not know what monstrous outgrowth in the history of this country, because we have been a popular government ; We have been in the tradition of this country since the French Revolution. We did not interrupt the chain, we did not break it, we have returned it and we tightened it. »»

Nevertheless, Vincent Duclert does not hesitate to refer to the great Greco-Roman texts as well as to the reflections of modern authors, stressing that the Republic is a project with ancient roots. Périclès, Cicero, Saint Augustin, Bacon, Spinoza, Condorcet or Foucault rub shoulders in a certain and claimed eclecticism. These are the referents and references of the hexagonal identity which, according to the author, can only ultimately be synonymous with republic and democracy. However, Duclert is careful not to propose a unequivocal reading: democracy, human rights and the Republic are precisely ways of not “ close The question of national identity.