Could Humanity be Outdated?
by Gala Chausson

French people have always been against everything, never happy with what they have but reluctant to see it change. A majority chose to vote for Nicolas Sarkozy last June, the figure of a radical change, thus expressing their enthusiasm to see the situation of their country evolve. Nonetheless, as observed in the last couple of months, the strikes, manifestations and riots multiply, and even if these troublemakers only represent a minor part of the population, the opinion of the "silent majority," grows more and more against the government. This is no news; French people have always been demonstration addicts. Are the French really against everything, or are they just willing to safeguard a certain French way of doing things; somehow compassionate and human?

France, for a long time, has endeavored to offer a decent minimum for its citizen; a worldwide recognized healthcare, a great public secondary education system, and even though the level of unemployment is high, job precariousness is rare. Of course this country is far from being perfect, and needs to revitalize, to restructure and to be boosted up. When you experience the difference in other countries, you realize these human values the French social system has are something to be very proud of. In a way that can seem a little irrational; our President views those qualities as weaknesses, and is willing to trade them to a new way of functioning, a way that is not part of the French culture and that promotes power, profit and aggressiveness.

How come one of the most influential countries in the world can't stand up for itself, for those great values? How come it can't set up an alternative example, less stressful, than the one of a life based on killing yourself to work for survival?

Nicolas Sarkozy is fascinated by the United States, and he doesn't hide it; he spent his first holidays as a President in Wolfeboro, NH. He keeps promoting the "friendship between the two countries" and even want to reintegrate into NATO, at the expense of fortifying Europe itself. He gained the nickname Sarkozy "the American." As the famous tennis player Yannick Noah stated it, when the president is in the US, "he sells us out, he forgets where he comes from." It is as if he was ashamed of France and recognized the system of the United States to be the greatest of all.

So, as the president of our poor France, he decided to make the country a little greater by transforming it and promoting strength and power.

First he decided to revolutionize the judiciary system. He established the "tolerance zero" measure, which is about to increase dramatically the number of incarcerations, especially in the underage "delinquents" category. This measure was taken in order to "wash away" the individuals who stain the perfect and clean France he wants to create; but this surface cleaning is far from bringing any solution to the problem. It is actually aggravating it on the inside. Since when does fear create lasting peace?

After the judicial system, he turned to the social one, and more particularly to the gradual abandonment of work security benefits. The President decided to "give the possibility" to the French people to work more, in order to earn more, thus imposing, in an indirect way, a much more work-based life than what it used to be. Also, he chose to take care of the plague of the "régimes spéciaux." These regimes needed a shake-up, but the background idea was still very good; it insured people doing the most dangerous and painful jobs to retire early. Nonetheless true to his simplistic approach, Sarkozy merely decided to get rid of them. But I wonder, does a population more subject to precariousness really make a country more prosperous?

One of Sarkozy's latest revolutions, and surely not his last, was to establish the "DNA tests." Those tests were put into place in order for immigrants to get DNA tested so they could stay with their relatives already settled on the French territory. This measure has of course generated many polemics on whether these measures weren't a little inhumane. People wondered if you could really define family and relationships only through genes, setting apart bonds much higher than that, and judge how much people need to be together. Does the strictness of a country make its grandeur?

This list is non exhaustive and Nicolas Sarkozy has surely done more in five months than the former President, Jacques Chirac, did in twelve years. This is what the French people wanted when they elected him. But in his hurry to revolutionize every little thing, is he actually doing more than just mimicking, somehow inadequately, other parts of the world he admires so? Are his notions of peace, prosperity or grandeur really fitting for the French system? Some French people are sure he is the only hope, "our Kennedy" they call him. Many of them have no clue and just hope for the best, but a growing number is afraid.

Call me idealistic or naive; maybe. But I believe that France doesn’t have to choose between inertness and being a mere copy of other systems as Nicolas Sarkozy seems to believe. This country, with the EU and some subtlety, could take advantage of its somewhat important influence and interesting social culture to set up a strong alternative example to the supremacist capitalist one, an example that would be more human. This would be grandeur.