17.11.2005

Party discipline no longer works

Elisabeth Gauthier is a member of the executive committee of the Parti Communiste Français. She spoke to Tina Becker about the recent riots in France

In its official statement the PCF executive proposes the "immediate deployment of local police and a partnership between all the concerned actors: police, gendarmerie, the courts, councils, local associations" (see Weekly Worker November 10). Do you really think that the deployment of the hated police could help to defuse the explosive situation? I think your translator got it totally wrong and did not understand what we meant. A few years ago, there was a police force in France called the proximité police. This force was very rooted in the localities and they did a lot of good work with young people, organised sports activities with them and so forth - it was a kind of neighbourhood police force. We are saying that this is the only kind of police force that should be employed in those troubled areas - most definitely not the BAC [crime unit]. Re-establishing this neighbourhood police and employing it on a permanent basis is one way of successfully conducting preventative work in those areas. Of course they would also be present when any trouble starts and would be perceived as less of a provocation than the riot police. Naturally, in order to prevent this widespread disaffection we would also need all those public services, youth centres, etc that have been abolished over the years. We need a new, ambitious policy for employment and training, we need anti-racist measures, more respect and we need to overcome the effects of colonialism. Using the neighbourhood police would be part of this programme. But this is not a call for police. Well, it is a call for neighbourhood police. But it looks to me as if disgust with the state's forces is behind much of the tensions. This seems an ideal time to bring up the call for a workers' militia. Not to violently put down the rioters, of course, but to introduce the idea that communities can organise themselves and don't need the state's forces. I'm sorry, but that sounds like a totally mad idea, which has no resonance at all in France. No sensible person would advocate that communities organise themselves or set up self-defence organisations. All serious politicians demand instead that we should set up political discussions in the boroughs, bringing together young people, local community groups and all other organisations. Including the police. Do you think the police are more capable of dealing with those tensions than our own organisations? This is not a fair question and I will not answer it like this. You have to look at the context in which we mention the neighbourhood police. This is not the same police that goes around criminalising a lot of young people and provoking them into using violent means. We are talking about the kind of security forces that should be expected in a civilised society. Public security is a public and not a private matter - it must be subject to democratic rules. Many PCF mayors have already announced that they will refuse to use the new legislation allowing them to introduce emergency measures in their cities to tackle the riots. This is quite a difficult situation for those who have responsibility for safety and security. As you know, it is the cars of the poor that are burning. Most of the people really do not want to be drawn into these provocations and riots. Those who concentrate purely on the policing aspect are a small minority inside the PCF. You say many PCF mayors "¦ do you not ask all your members, including mayors, to implement the party position, which is clearly against the emergency measures? They are quite capable of thinking for themselves. But of course we do have party caucuses and meetings where we discuss our position. Party discipline simply does not work any more. Mayors have been elected by the majority in their particular area and represent their city or borough. They don't represent the Communist Party. Of course they need the party to discuss politics and to think about bigger political questions. As individual politicians, they will have to try to put into practice their political priorities. But they are accountable to their council or city parliament. But they are not just individuals: they have been elected as members of the PCF. If you do not ask them to adhere to the party's positions, is there not a real danger that 'Realpolitik' will shift them to the right? There are enough examples in our history, don't you think? But normal people are not necessarily politically on the right. Quite the opposite: More and more are supporting policies that are critical of neoliberalism rather than conformist policies. There is, of course, a contradiction today when we look at the violence of these riots. The main danger here is that the poor and dispossessed become divided. That those people in the poor areas who can just about afford a car have been alienated from their own young people. And that creates a very dangerous atmosphere, from which mainly the right would benefit. This is the main reason why we must condemn the violence. What role do you think the decline of the left and particularly of the PCF plays in this situation? If the left was stronger and could offer young people better perspectives, the situation would look a lot different today: our society would be a different one, the city boroughs would not have been given up on, racism and discrimination would not have developed in the way they have. Of course, the key question is what kind of left and what programme it puts forward. I am quite critical of the left, including my own organisation, for ignoring or at least downplaying the effects of colonialisation. There is a tendency for the left to only concentrate on the social and economic questions involved and to ignore the deep political problems we have in the aftermath of colonialisation and the special racism and discrimination that exists in France today. There are lot of poor boroughs in France and widespread social exclusion. But the violence has developed only in some areas, not in others. There is something special going on in those boroughs that have now exploded: large groups of young people no longer accept being treated like criminals and getting searched at every corner, while their equally poor neighbours - because of their white skin - do not experience such things. This collective and massive discrimination exists in everyday life, for example during the job application process. The left definitely needs to tackle this question more seriously than it has up to now. Another political question that I think the left in France should have taken more seriously was the government's ban on religious and political symbols in French schools. In our opinion, this was an attempt by the Chirac government to divide the French working class. Although the PCF officially opposed the ban, seven out of its 24 members in the French assembly voted for it and there was very little in terms of concrete action against it. Is there not a danger that by not fully siding with an oppressed section of society the left loses its already weak influence? Of course, in the last few years the idea of the 'clash of civilisations' has found increased support in the population. In the European elections, for example, a so-called 'solidarity list' with Palestinians put forward candidates and many young people identified with it. Many supported it, because they felt similarly excluded from society; some took part because they are Arabs and could feel a sense of identity with the Palestinians. An increasing sense of discrimination among the young found its expression in a number of ways and it is not surprising that it has come to a head. But that does not mean that they are now revolting against the ban of the hijab in schools. They are revolting against discrimination. This law hardly matters in France today and there have been surprisingly few problems with its implementation. We had feared that this law could have sparked a lot of tension. But this did not become a generalised confrontation. Today's riots are not about the hijab - they are about the police controls, the racism in society, the daily discrimination. These young people demand to be integrated fully into French society. They are asking for the republic to be democratised, for liberté, egalité and fraternité to become a reality for them. I understand the PCF supports the campaign for residence citizenship - ie, that everybody should have full citizenship wherever they reside. Yes, everybody who lives in France should have the same civil rights and we demand an extension of those rights. Often, this problem does not so much affect the young people, many of whom have full French citizenship - it affects many of their parents, the first generation of immigrants. We must also fully integrate and include the sans papiers into French society: we need a new policy to giving them documented citizenship. As you know, amongst the young people arrested last week were about 150 foreigners, all of whom have been resident in France for many years, most since birth. Interior minister Nicolas Sarkozy is planning to deport those youths, many of whom have no family or social networks in their country of origin. We strongly oppose this measure. In my opinion, if you take this concept of residence citizenship to a logical conclusion, it leads to the demand for open borders. What is your position? We are in the middle of developing a policy on what we call the 'democratisation of all borders'. This is not an easy task and we are keen to develop a real policy rather than platitudes. Freedom of movement must be part of this policy, as well as the safeguarding of every individual's human rights. This is necessary to avoid exploitation by people trafficking, for example. Inside Europe, most borders have already been abolished and that has created worse conditions for all those outside Europe. The horrific scenes we have recently seen at those borders show where this policy leads. At the same time, you can see how young women from countries outside the EU are being exploited here. If you demand the abolition of all appropriate rules, you risk surrendering those people to total exploitation. But free movement of all people, combined with the right to full citizenship for everybody, would surely achieve the opposite and take those people out of illegality? As long as we live in such an unjust society, where people starve to death in one part of the world and in another they lead a decent life, the abolition of all borders does not constitute, I think, a real solution to all these fundamental problems. Related articles * Empty platitudes or programme of action Tina Becker reports from the November 12-13 'Assembly for a charter of principles for another Europe' in Florence