Hervé Mariton: "Politicians must accept the complexity and the disparity of the world"

Hervé Mariton is a former minister and MP. He is now the mayor of Crest.

Does the crisis impose unified modes of analysis, expression and action? Scientific analysis, uncertain and evolving, confronted different positions, sometimes divergent, among medical specialists in the disease, as among researchers working on tracing. Legitimately legitimate in a democracy, political differences have emerged. Local authorities are multiplying initiatives, sometimes competing with the State, to buy masks or impose a curfew. But this is rather seen as proof of the existence of loopholes in the reaction to the crisis. The difference is not seen as a tool for responding to the crisis, or a way out, or even ultimately as a path to resilience.

Containment was heard very uniformly. There had to be a clear main message. He was understood to be stiffer than he was. Thus the message of the closure of companies was immediately and lastingly interpreted. Sometimes, businesses that could remain open have not been opened (dry cleaners, opticians, etc.). Companies have made the choice, when their activity does not lend itself to telework, to close rather than to look precisely at what could be pursued, and with what precautions. The example of building and public works is illustrative. Murielle Pénicaud, Minister of Labor, was clumsy in her admonitions to companies, but the activity was frozen. A meal lost for a restaurateur is definitely lost; a stopped site will resume. The payment of salaries by the State did not encourage a detailed analysis of the situations. This analysis, from the start, would also have made it possible to better prepare, even when serious difficulties appeared, the conditions for recovery.

The confinement constraints were designed to be excessively uniform in its police provisions, with regard, for example, to movement restrictions. The logic of uniformity justifies blockages which it only breaks through contortions which damage the legitimacy of the higher objective. Thus, the owners of horses obtained to be able to go to the equestrian centers or in the meadows to feed them or care for them, by checking on the certificate of displacement, "the compelling family motive"? The apparent rigidity also causes delays: it took more than a month to resolve this situation. This general and egalitarian application assumes a very standardized, very material vision of man and his needs but it does not provide for life in its diversity. Fortunately, hospitals and retirement homes have taken it upon themselves to expand the possibilities of meeting parents, chaplains for people at the end of their lives. Worship services cannot take place in closed enclosures. When the summer is coming, can't we imagine outdoor worship for a limited number of worshipers in available spaces? The logic of uniformity has also led to refusing to consider physical activity in urban and rural areas differently. I understand that we wanted to regulate the conditions of jogging in Paris. Should hiking in the mountains or by the sea be prohibited? Some would have thought that these images would be unbearable for people confined to their small apartment. So if I own a very large estate, I can walk around there at ease. If I'm next to a national forest, no. The epidemiology has nothing to do with these absurd injunctions, only the egalitarian imperative motivates them.

French society is usually too rigid. The confinement gives it to its instincts and is quite easy to engage; we have known since Jean de La Fontaine that "frogs ask for a king". But then, deconfinement is all the more difficult.

Many want a unique health truth and the operational response to it. But the path of the virus remains uncertain, the medical means unsuccessful, the economic and social issues are important; a single answer would be absurd. We must accept this complexity of the world and the humility it commands. This humility engages our responsibility: being able to act without necessarily knowing everything, limiting risks as much as we know, as much as we can. Whoever offers a service, a good, whoever asks for them are each faced with a responsibility that is frightening. The Minister of Culture, Franck Riester, had proposed that the "small festivals" could restart before July 15, the date envisaged for a more general opening. This caused loud shouts from the organizers. It would be up to them as to their public, to weigh the desire, the possibilities, the risks. Difficult task. But, assuming that July 15 is a date of "national liberation", the same reflection must be held after, except to consider that a regulatory decision exempts choice and responsibility. To propose a food market for a municipality is to take a risk; sell there, buy there too. This risk is more identifiable than the anonymous figure of the hypermarket. Tomorrow, restaurateurs will have to wonder: one or more services, in the dining room or on the terrace, with air conditioning or not, more spaced, less full tables? Of course, there will be guides to good practice, frameworks, but everyone will ultimately have to decide. As I will decide whether or not to go to these establishments. Except to block any activity or to accept constraints which will only ask to be circumvented, everything should not, cannot be decided "from above".

But the rejection of autonomy is deeply rooted in society and the evil comes from far away. An example in education: in my town of Crest, we define the school schedules so as to lighten the school day and offer quality activities, adapting as closely as possible to the demand of families. This leads to an organization distinct from the most common national framework (four-day week) and different from one school to another. The main objection of the teachers was, during the last school year, that our scheme was not identical to the national scheme, moreover not uniform. The state allows these differences; why not thrive, for the good of children, on this freedom? The government, no doubt making virtue of necessity, is proposing a return to school on May 11, leaving a lot of organizational and adaptation responsibilities to the municipalities and school principals. We hear critics who would always like a more standardized framework. But can we not hope that local actors have the intelligence for situations adapted to these exceptional circumstances?

Resilience also requires buy-in, the involvement of citizens, in their diversity. This mobilization requires strong local communities. The local spring is a pillar of resilience. Should we then change the framework for decentralization, initiate institutional reforms? They are always uncertain and distract from the action. Simply encourage everyone to take responsibility.