"Freedom, equality, and brotherhood" are the three basic principles upon which the First French Republic (1792-1804) was based and borrowed its slogans from the revolution. However, recent revisions to the idea of "republic" show that reality may take place with what the slogans do not desire.
In his article published in the French mediapart, the writer Fabian Escalona, who holds a PhD in political science and studies the European social democratic movement, says that when homogeneity takes precedence over equality, then authoritarian or other tendencies related to identity appear in the republic, as well as The universality of values and the universality of rights are at stake.
French republics
The author wonders whether the idea of the republic in itself, in its more advanced formulations, provides outlets for the exclusion discourse and its practices that were mainly fueled by the successive (five) republics regimes in France.
He believes that the answer to these questions is difficult because the meaning of the word "republic" has never been settled, and considering it as a system has led to the emergence of contradictory policies, as he put it.
In France, historian Maurice Agoulhoune (died 2014) says, "We have a republic in the singular form, presented as an ideal to the extent that it has become abstract or absent, and republics with numbers that are somewhat similar to them."
All ambiguities or ambiguities are concentrated in the Third Republic, or the "Final Republic" (the Fifth French Republic) (from 1958 until now).
If there was a founding stage marked by the enactment of laws that led to the consolidation of fundamental freedoms in France, then the years that followed witnessed the repression of workers and "rogue laws" under the pretext of struggle against anarchism or anarchism, according to the author.
During those years also, a colonial party was formed that was not the subject of widespread conflict, and it led, as historian Vincent Duclert reminds us in his book The Republic We Imagine, to “the tyranny of the state that was not limited to imperialist regimes such as Britain or Germany. A place of barbarism legislated by the civilizational duty of France.
According to the author, under this system and society, and on the occasion of the Dreyfus issue, the national interest was addressed in the name of higher values such as justice and truth, and the republican idea rooted in the logic of human rights was also addressed.
In the midst of these paradoxes, one can observe the tension defined by Agulhon, between the defenders of the "maximum" republic (which concerns the implementation of all the values of the republic) and the followers of the "minimum" republic (which accepts minimum values).
In the eyes of the defenders of the republic of the maximum, the form of the regime should be strengthened by respecting the revolutionary experience, paying attention to the fate of the popular classes, as well as secular ideology, and glorifying parliament in the face of every personal authority.
As for the followers of the "minimalist" republic, who support the system because there is no better solution for them, they did not accept these "additions".
'Reactionary continuity'
The writer adds that it became clear that the state owes one of those supporters of the regime for "submission" and only accepting the cessation of the humiliation resulting from the defeat of 1940 (the occupation of France by the Nazi forces that continued to rule the country until 1944).
Thus, Charles de Gaulle, the first president of the Fifth French Republic (1890-1970) since 1958, was able to establish a republican system in form, but his ambition to build the consensus of his successor and his strong concept of executive power were inconsistent with the republican culture at the beginning of the twentieth century, according to the writer.
By placing France on the table of the victors of the Vichy regime (the pro-Nazi French government established after the occupation of France) whose political nature was contrary to the republic, the leader of Free France (the French government in British exile during World War II) also saw that the republic was an idea that had always been She had a positive role in history.
According to Sarah Mazouz, a sociologist at the National Center for Scientific Research, this "did not help to notice the reactionary continuity. We often insist on the division between metropolitans and colonies under the Third Republic, to the point that we no longer see that the same system established the rules." Government, and that tangible post-colonial legacies resulted from it. "
According to Vincent Marigny, a professor of political science at Nice University, “The fundamental problem with republican thought is the confusion between equality and homogeneity. It is up to Father Gregoire, a symbol of the French Revolution, who fought for the liberation of minorities and the elimination of local dialects at the same time. We understand each other, we need a common identity, and common rules for politics, for fear of division. Perhaps the search for a more open and pluralistic path occurred, but the republic of government that won was the one that had this authoritarian side.
Samuel Hayat, a researcher at the National Center for Scientific Research, believes that "there are factors that have led to the dominance of conservatives."
According to him, the French Republic hides a "unitary" (not pluralistic) dimension, even in its most radical versions on the social level.
Emphasis on public interest, virtue, and devotion to the public interest is associated with conservatism, and the universality of the majority of Republicans remains global with values calling for unified content.
It is not the universality of rights more open to minority politics. "
The author concludes that to explore the French Republic, critical events and ancient intellectual traditions in the country's history must be reconsidered. Behind the apparent clarity of the republican lexicon, which is often used to close any discussion, there are painful ambiguities.