LITMIR.BIZ

Скачать книгу

a federalist alternative to French republicanism that seemingly offered a way out of the long-standing dilemma of assimilatory integration or secession. The problem in the Algerian case, however, had less to do with Algerian demands for recognition as a distinct nation within the French state than Ory’s rhetoric suggested. Indeed, such recognition would have made little sense given the striking presence of several socially and culturally distinct potential national groups within Algeria. The true crux of the Algerian crisis arguably lay less in assimilation’s inadequacies than in the inadequacies and inconsistencies of France’s supposed commitment to assimilation. Because of resistance from the metropole to the possibility of seeing the French legislature swamped by Algerian representatives, and because of resistance to reform on the part of a “French” Algerian minority fearful of losing its prerogatives, French leaders were never politically willing and able truly to extend the equal treatment entailed by the “assimilation” option to the non-European population of the Algerian departments.

      As these varied contributions to the Espaces 89 conference revealed, many observers on the left agreed that assimilation was in crisis in 1980s France. Unlike critics on the right, however, they saw this crisis not as a danger to France, but instead as an opportunity for new kinds of progressive reform that were long overdue.

       In France as in Europe: France’s “New Citizenship” in International Context

      Demands for a “new citizenship” marked one logical response to that perceived crisis of assimilation: retreat from nationality as a basis for citizenship and extending increasingly equal rights, particularly local ones, to all residents of given areas.. The thinking and expectations of new citizenship’s supporters in 1980s France were closely akin to those of observers who have since announced a progressive or triumphal international or European turn to post-nationalism. The French campaign for a new citizenship was, in fact, part of a broader European movement at the time.

      A report to the European Parliament, written by an Italian Communist representative, for example, recommended that migrants be granted the right to vote in the country in which they resided, and resulted in an official recommendation passed by the European Parliament in the spring of 1985. The currency of the local voting rights idea on the left in Europe at the time thus apparently reached well beyond the smaller, northern countries where extensions of local voting rights had already been passed (Wihtol de Wenden 1986:

      29). The demands of the new citizenship campaign in France in some ways simply reflected these larger European trends (cf., Hammar 1990: 169–200; Bauböck 1994: 199–232).

       In France as in France: The Specifically French Character of the New Citizenship Campaign

      The arguments advanced in favor of the “new citizenship” idea in France and French understandings of its significance were, however, at the same time distinctive in key respects. To understand how the idea was later discursively delegitimized, it is essential first to understand its distinctively French referents and perceived significance, particularly the role of French labor history as a referent and the decidedly “anti-statist” cast of French defenses of new citizenship. When the new citizenship campaign was delegitimized, however, what was defeated was not just a policy idea but also a particular coalition of actors who had developed, supported, and promoted it. Before turning to the symbolic and discursive particularities of the local voting rights campaign in France, it may be helpful first to look at who supported it, and why and how they sought to promote it.

      The Social and Political Bases of France’s New Citizenship Campaign

      The idea of extending more equal civic and political rights to immigrants was an initiative that emerged primarily out of groups on the French left with a localist or collectivist orientation. The campaign for a “new citizenship” was launched largely by French left organizations outside the party system, and won only limited support from Socialist Party leaders (Dinant 1985: 11–12). Calls for greater participation of immigrants in local political life began to be heard in France as early as the late 1970s. The Federation of Associations of Solidarity with Immigrant Workers (Fédération des Associations de Solidarité avec les Travailleurs Immigrés FASTI) supported the right of immigrants to vote and to stand for office beginning in 1975. At first, FASTI was isolated in its position, and made only low-key efforts to attract support for its ideas. Other groups were also starting to consider issues of migrant representation, but none yet went so far as FASTI on this score. From 1977 to 1981, the Christian refugee assistance group CIMADE (Comité Inter-mouvements auprès des Évacués) and parts of the Socialist Party expressed their support for the creation of institutions to represent “migrants” as a group at the local level, but initially not for the direct, individual participation of migrants in the election of regular local council representatives (Wihtol de Wenden 1986: 26–27; Serres 1985: 4–5).⁴

      Beginning in 1980, however, the voting rights demands initially made by FASTI started to find other supporters. The Confédération Française Démocratique du Travail (CFDT)—France’s largest trade union confederation—called for local voting rights for immigrants who met a minimal residency requirement (Wihtol de Wenden 1986: 27). Notably, the Human Rights League (Ligue des Droits Humaines, LDH) also adopted a resolution in favor of municipal voting rights for immigrants at its 61st Congress in November 1980. Subsequently, the local voting rights idea in France would, like the turn to “post-nationalism” later proclaimed in the academic literature, be closely linked to support for the cause of human rights. LDH’s resolution received open support from France’s small socialist PSU party, religious organizations, and of course FASTI.

      During the mid–1980s, associations grouping first-generation immigrant workers according to their country of origin also campaigned actively in favor of the “immigrant voting rights” idea. The Amicale des Travailleurs Africains en France (ATAF), a humanitarian organization committed to promoting social action and mutual aid among African workers in France, was among those declaring their support for immigrants’ right both to vote and to run for office (Dinant 1985: 13). Accounts of the events organized by associations of and for immigrant workers are suggestive of the flavor of the campaign for local voting rights during those years, particularly as the idea was presented locally to other foreigners. In March 1986, the Union of Tunisian Workers (UTIT) and the Democratic Union of Kurdish Workers in France (UDTKF) were active in organizing a local festival for the promotion of immigrant voting rights in Chalon sur Saône. The symbolism on which the festival drew was leftist, collectivist, and hostile to the French state. The mock-vote that crowned the day’s activities was preceded by performances of Kurdish and Maghrebin musicians who sang about Tunisia and the struggles of the Moroccan and Palestinian peoples. The festivities thus symbolically associated the immigrant voting rights issue with both anti-imperialism and the promotion of cultural diversity in France. This festival also thereby framed local voting rights in terms of a more general celebration of locally rooted collective struggles for autonomy from state authorities.⁵

      This event marked a clear change from the initial hostility of such firstgeneration foreign worker organizations to immigrant voting rights. Originally, many had viewed such initiatives as assimilationist and feared their potential to undermine immigrants’ political engagement in their countries of origin (Serres 1985: 4). There was never unanimity on this point, however. As early as 1982, the Association of Workers from Turkey (ATT) expressed support for the right of immigrants to vote in France as “a step toward the equality of French-immigrant rights that goes further than the simple right to vote in the country of origin” (Dinant 1985: 13). By the mid–1980s, foreign workers in France were increasingly arguing that extending voting rights to immigrants would better enable them to resist assimilation, by allowing them to obtain more equal political rights without becoming French nationals. Those who were attached to their nationality of origin as an anchor of cultural identity, it was argued, would be able to vote without sacrificing it (Lefranc 1985: 7).

      One reason for the eventual waning of this argument may have been its inaccuracy, at least in legal terms. France in fact allows double nationality. Acquiring French nationality therefore entails the loss of one’s nationality of origin only where required by the laws of the other country. Neither Portugal nor Algeria, whose emigrants together accounted

Скачать книгу