On does not expect, a priori, from an organization which fights daily against racism, anti-Semitism and discrimination that it decides on the subject of a pension reform, except to alert to the fact that anger is likely to cause fractures within society, with an increased taste, in recent years, for the most uninhibited speeches. The excesses of political discourse observed during the debates on the pension reform challenge us, and worry us.
What has to do with the quality of public debate and respect for republican institutions concerns us first and foremost, because we know that the good performance of the republican framework indeed depends on our common future. In the current configuration, the anti-system logic asserted on certain benches of the National Assembly finds its account perfectly there: when La France insoumise (LFI) engages in shameless provocations, is amused by insults uttered towards such and such a minister, the National Rally (RN), in a calculated silence, has a good chance of posing as a respectful party, guarantor of the institutions and of the republican order. In this sense, yes, LFI and its childish provocations serve as a stepping stone or rocket launcher for the RN: there are great risks that Marine Le Pen’s party, lurking in the shadows, will harvest, when the day comes, the votes of voters tired or offended by these repeated controversies.
Faced with this grim prospect, we cannot remain speechless. Some will say that by reacting to these outbursts, these parliamentary invectives, we are stepping outside our prerogatives. That there is no question here of anti-Semitism, racism or discrimination. However, the fight against these scourges cannot be dissociated from the good health of our Republic and our democracy. Let the latter sway and we are diverted from the universalist course, which alone tends towards real equality.
Generalized drift
The excesses of pathetic language, the desire to provoke appear day after day as a strategy assumed by La France insoumise. The political formation sees itself as revolutionary, which undoubtedly legitimizes in the eyes of its executives that they can afford everything, even the most vile blows. There is a great risk that this strategy will transform the high place of democracy that is the National Assembly into a sterile battlefield. Let me be heard: in this arena, disagreements have always been freely expressed, as evidenced by the reports of parliamentary debates of the past century, where one tastes, page after page, the flashes of a political language rubbed with the most acerbic rivalries. No, what worries today is the installation in the heart of the Hemicycle of a state of mind weakening the institutions.
You have 52.99% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.