The French electoral campaign, like several that have preceded it in Great Britain, the United States and the Netherlands, along with future campaigns in other countries, provides the opportunity for a large number of candidates to speak out against « the system, » guilty of all the misfortunes, responsible for all the failures, all the problems. It has been said that the « system » creates unemployment, poverty, poor housing, poor quality of life, junk food, terrorism, and some even say global warming.
Seeking a single cause for all of the world’s evils is not new. It is quite a common practice. The Greeks called it « pharmakon, » which was translated as « scapegoat, » in reference to the scapegoating ritual in Judea: the symbolic removal of the people’s sins with the literal removal of the goat, punished for the crimes of all, in order to avoid having to take revenge on each other; and which by its very death, restores social order. Over the centuries, many groups and peoples have taken on this role: Witches, Gypsies, Blacks, Arabs, Freemasons, Jews, Christians, Muslims, as well as many others outside the group.
For some time now, this role has increasingly been attributed not to a social, religious or national group, but to a strange entity known as the « system. »
The word is so vague as to be open to all kinds of interpretations by those who use it, and those who hear it: some of those who use it are politicians; others are entrepreneurs or wealthy people; still others are high-level officials from the French Government or the European Union. More generally, all of the people who ensure that society functions as it does today; still more generally, all those who have succeeded in doing so under the existing set of rules and who are referred to as an oligarchy. Still more generally, the rules themselves, ie. the market economy, the opening of borders, the parliamentary system, democracy; a system which today had resulted in a frustrating, unfair and unacceptable situation, in many respects, for the vast majority of people who have no hope of improving their situation and where a small minority, becoming hereditary, grants itself all the privileges.
Likewise, those who hear it place a specific meaning on it, generally that of the reason for their dissatisfaction, their feeling of injustice and frustration.
So when you hear of system, ask yourself what thoughts come to your mind and you will know what is troubling you about society, and then ask yourself if this is true and fair. You will also ask yourself what is the true intention of those who oppose the system, and if they pay little attention to those they speak to, as to dare to make them believe in such short and general statements.
You will ask yourself if, in a certain manner, the system is not simply for all of us, other people, when we have difficulty accepting their successes, when their power or wealth, or success, is viewed as illegitimate. You will ask yourself whether it is really necessary to call into question all the things that help to strengthen our democracy, our way of life, our secularism, the opening of our borders, our capacity to accept our share of the woes of the world; or if it would not be better, over and over again, to make profound improvements to this complex and intricate balance, that is called market democracy. To ensure the development of a fine balance between the vitality of the latter and the wisdom of the former.