The former Minister of Justice and current mayor of the 7th arrondissement of Paris believes, in a forum in the “World”, that the method used by the government to manage the health crisis is responsible for the rise in tensions in France. It calls for more consultation and co-construction.
During the summer, the fracturing of our country worsened in an extreme way, to the point of jeopardizing civil peace. Even if we are in the catching-up phase, the figures for the vaccination against Covid-19 show that the reluctance towards it joined other fractures, social and territorial. There is a perfect correspondence between the vaccination rate and the level of income in Ile-de France. Politicians must question the old reasons which have led mistrust to take root among some of our fellow citizens and in certain territories.
In responsibility, they must take the measure of the impact that the multiple reversals may have had in the past months, but also old health scandals. That one of the territories most hostile to vaccination is Martinique, affected by the scandal of chlordecone, a highly harmful pesticide, for which the State was held responsible in November 2019, is not trivial.
I do not place full responsibility for the mistrust on the government, but I see that it aggravates it by not taking the measure or by treating it with contempt. Among those who have fallen into mistrust are those who were applauded every evening at 8 p.m. during the first confinement. The promises of a world according to which is fairer, more egalitarian, and which better recognizes the social utility of trades, have so far not been followed up.
What we are currently experiencing goes beyond the health issue and lies in the state of tension in the country. When the government pretends to be pedagogical, it only adds fuel to the fire. As with the “yellow vests” movement, the unacceptable excesses of a minority are used to discredit any opposition. As for the movement of “yellow vests”, the government plays with fears to unite part of the population against another, designated every day as more threatening. We leave the France of the disgusted to side with either the abstention or the side of the extremes, until the day when the country is set ablaze.
I don’t think the government is doing what it can, as we sometimes hear it said. I think he’s playing with fears. Hysterizing the debate on vaccination saves him from having to talk about the abysmal debt that is growing, of a country that does not control its borders, of a country that no longer offers any hope of social advancement. In five years, the social divide has deepened like never before. This is not so much noticeable by economic indicators as by a deep and lasting feeling of exclusion and relegation that has taken hold.
The popular classes not only feel that they can no longer change their condition, they feel despised and excluded from public debate. How could I not understand their disgust and their revolt! If I fought so hard to elevate myself, it wasn’t just for social and professional success. In this case, I would have quickly left a political life where I was permanently under attack and suspicion. If I wanted to rise, it was also to change things, to have the means to act, to fight determinisms, to try to reduce the gap which separates social conditions in France. How long will we accept to see our country fracture? It can’t go on anymore.
I, however a right-wing woman, no longer believe that a providential man will solve the growing problem of mistrust. France is too damaged to consider that a woman or a man will be enough, for her or him alone, to change things.
What France needs is a change of method. We are living a social deconstruction without reconstruction of a desire for collective life. The new method that we must use must be based on a logic of consultation, of collective construction, a method without contempt and in listening. The stake of the next election will be to carry the voice of all those who no longer find themselves in the state of the country.