Éric DELBECQUE is an expert in internal security. He was the Deputy Director of Security for Charlie Hebdo after the 2015 attack. He is the author of Les Ingouvernables From the utopian far left to the violent ultra-left, plunged into an unknown France (Grasset).
FIGAROVOX. - Several demonstrations took place this November 27 in Paris, as in Marseille, at the initiative of left movements to fight "
against the extreme right and racism
", were the scene of violence.
Are their organizers accomplices?
Eric DELBECQUE. -
I do not know if we can speak of complicity, because we would have to have more material elements to form an opinion.
But it is clear that the maintenance of an atmosphere, of a climate of politico-ideological "nervousness" on the part of some of them leads very easily to the increase in violence.
People who practice violence, as we have seen for several years, very often cover themselves with benevolent slogans which could be the object of peaceful demonstrations, and which end up becoming the alibi of violent individuals. The question is always the same: in the situations we are talking about, do we face people who quietly and legitimately organize demonstrations without resorting to violence, and whose actions are parasitized, hijacked by troublemakers? Are they simply, in spite of themselves, the occasion for the expression of a brutality which they condemn? Or are they somehow impostors, hypocrites,which serve as a consenting screen to the surge of violence? You have to think on a case-by-case basis to get a satisfactory answer.
In a demonstration, one can find people of the ultra-left, in particular Black blocs, some elements of ultra-right, conspirators, anti-ax, anti-pass, rioters who present themselves as "yellow vests".
Eric Delbecque
In an election period, like the one we are experiencing, it is even less possible to tolerate interference with the free play of democratic expression.
Whether we agree or not with so and so (Éric Zemmour or others, it doesn't matter), all points of view must be able to be expressed in democracy from the moment they are registered on the legal chessboard. .
They should not be subjected to any form of intimidation or violence.
Should we necessarily expect violent social movements when the left protests?
Today, we observe a great porosity between the protesters. In a demonstration, one can find people of the ultra-left, in particular Black blocs, some elements of ultra-right, conspirators, anti-ax, anti-pass, rioters who present themselves as "yellow vests". There is porosity between all of these groups. In general, the demonstrations often carry a dose of violent elements which instrumentalize these demonstrations by inscribing it in their own operational and strategic agenda, while deploying their own and inextinguishable will to propagate chaos and violence. So indeed the probability is very high. Especially since we are living a particular moment, the Covid crisis promoting psychological decompensation and therefore the passage to the act,the unleashing of destructive hostility.
Structurally, the ultra-left is the best organized to overwhelm a demonstration. In those which start peacefully, antifas or Black blocs practice the cuckoo technique: they fit inside the group and take advantage of it to degenerate events. For some, the exercise of violence constitutes a drug. For others, it is militant objectives: to defeat the police, to try to provoke a slippage, to try to parasitize government action. These goals sometimes overlap. Usually this has little to do with the actual purpose of the manifestation.
On BFM TV, the elected representative of the City of Paris, Alice Coffin, legitimized this violence to prevent Eric Zemmour from coming to Marseille. Why do we tolerate violence when it comes from the far left?
Anyone, whether elected or not, who legitimizes this type of violence, does not understand what the rules of the Republic and democracy are.
Any use of force outside the legal framework for sanctioning offenses or crimes, rebellion or self-defense (for citizens as well as for the police) is contrary to the democratic and republican spirit.
It's as simple as that.
People who reason in the mode "
no freedom for the enemies of freedom
»Commit two errors: who are they to arbitrate between the partisans and the opponents of freedom (often they also take ideological positions which have little respect for the humanist tradition)? And since when is it republican behavior to prevent citizens from expressing themselves, from debating, as long as they do not offend the law? Such people, and all their comments are meaningless and irrelevant. They are not credible.
In the media, when the ultra-left resort to violence, there is indeed a form of appeasement in large sections of the intelligentsia, in certain parties and in many media. For the ultra-right, the reactions are most often immediate. Obviously, both are equally bad. Whether it comes from the ultra-left or the ultra-right, violence is always unacceptable. And the idea that ultra-left people have a kind of impunity bonus because their ideals are "pure" is inadmissible. It has been the same question for a long time: does the end justify the means? My answer is no.
All violence is to be condemned in the Republic: some should get rid of their old Marxist reflexes.
They certainly abandoned the doctrinal content of the author of Capital, but they persist in Pavlovian behavior and psychological shackles bringing us back to the climate of the Cold War.
Eric Delbecque
More generally, we join here the old debate of Max Weber between ethics of conviction and ethics of responsibility. The ethics of conviction consists in saying that everything is allowed in the name of an idea. However, there is also the ethics of responsibility, which consists in taking into account the consequences of our actions. The latter founds the ideal of liberal democracy, of the Republic of Spirit 1789. Historically, the revolutionary posture is favored in our country; some of our intellectuals are sinking into the romanticism of the violent Revolution, into the literary cult of the expression of violence. All violence is to be condemned in the Republic: some should get rid of their old Marxist reflexes. They certainly abandoned the doctrinal content of the author of
Capital
, but they persist in Pavlovian behaviors and psychological shackles bringing us back to the climate of the Cold War.
A new demonstration will take place on December 5. Should we allow it? What device should be put in place to limit violence?
It is not for me to have an opinion on this question.
It is not my role.
On the other hand, it is clear that in the period we are going through, for all the reasons I mentioned previously, when a demonstration takes place, it is a question of anticipating potential slippages and taking all the measures that are needed.
We must let the professionals of the maintenance of order, police and gendarmes.