In this holiday season, when the conversations with family and friends will
multiply, the time is right to lay the foundation for future projects.
Everyone, at one time or another of this fortnight, will look back over the
past 12 months, make commitments and a list of projects for the coming year.
Everyone, in order to decide, will draw upon a certain idea of his identity,
real and fantasized; of what he believes is essential to defend and conquer:
it is necessary to know who we are and who we want to be, in order to choose
who we want to remain or become; and how to reach that point.
The same applies to the national community: even before starting to think
about the choice that everyone will have to make at the time of the upcoming
elections, we should dare to explain our perception of France, the values it
must defend, and what it must become.
Today, there are four opposing views of our country in play, each defined by
what, for those that defend it, constitute the identity of the country.
These four concepts, seldom made explicit, constitute in fact the
foundations of all possible political positions. From them stem all the
political projects imaginable.
For some, France is first defined by its territory. It must be defended and
showcased. For those who think that way, nothing is more important than
borders, nothing is more important than those born in this territory, who
are the sole owners. Policy is thus reduced to its development, and defense.
For others, France is defined by a language and a culture; they are the ones
that must be defended and promoted above all. And for this, the priority of
policy makers should go to the education, the culture, the defense of the
use of French, to its promotion worldwide. Any foreigner is welcome on
condition that he learns and speaks our language and accepts our way of
life; we must especially attract the best creators, the best students.
For others still, France is defined by values, which must be defended at all
costs, in France and elsewhere: liberty, equality, fraternity, human rights.
For them, the most important is to build and defend the rule of law and an
economic and social global system consistent with these values, export them,
and to build a Europe and a world consistent with these ideals.
For others still, France is no longer defined merely as a place to live,
where everyone should feel happy and have personal perspectives; and
everyone should feel free to leave if he does not get what he wants from it.
For them, France is only one hotel among others, with no special
relationship with customers, or employees; and France must first offer, if
it wants to retain its youth, a good system of health care, safety and
employment.
Each concept of envisioning France appeared successively, in this order, at
various stages of our history; feeding on each other; and are more and more
virtual, more and more abstract, less and less assumed, less often
discussed: one can die for a country, culture or values. Who would die for a
hotel?
We cannot also hope to defend these four concepts. The scarcity of
resources, more than ever, requires choices. To each of us to dare to assume
what we dream for France, before deciding on its future.
9164