Writing in the British newspaper The Guardian, Philippe Marlière, professor of French and European politics at University College, London, described the reaction by French President François Hollande to the Bastille Day terrorist attack in Nice as one aimed at pleasing the far right.
Appearing on TV at 4 am the morning after the attack, Hollande said: “This is undoubtedly a terrorist attack; the whole of France is under the threat of an Islamic terrorist attack.”
Marlière’s assessment of the French President’s statement rests on the fact that despite the claim by Isis that the perpetrator of the attack, Tunisian-born Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, was a “soldier” of the group, it appears that Bouhlel acted on his own initiative. Besides, he was not particularly interested in religion.
When interviewed by Bloomberg, former US State Department counterterrorism head Daniel Benjamin said that whether there was any element of “command and control” by Isis still needs to be seen.
The attack was another horrendous tragedy that is becoming a frequent occurrence in France. Carrying out the attack on the anniversary of the storming of the Bastille had the added significance of a direct strike against republican France and the values of ‘Liberty, Equality, Fraternity’ that are synonymous with post-1789 France.
Furthermore, the country will face a presidential election in 10 months’ time with the possibility of extreme right National Front leader Marine Le Pen actually making it to the second round becoming more of a probability.
In his article, Marliére wrote: “The Nice atrocities could herald a reaction of public defiance to Hollande and to mainstream politicians, as well as start a process of political disintegration. This bleak scenario would play into the hand of the extreme right and would further strengthen it.”
Terrorist attacks in Europe certainly seem to be strengthening the attraction of the extreme right in the eyes of voters across the continent. Having sighed with relief at the result of the presidential elections in Austria in May which saw Norbert Hofer of the extreme right Freedom party (FPÖ) lose by a margin of only 30,863 votes to the Green-backed candidate Alexander Van der Bellen, the run-off vote will have to be repeated across the whole country in October after the Austrian constitutional court upheld a complaint by the FPÖ. The party had claimed irregularities in the count of the vote in several constituencies.
Elections and referenda are democratic exercises that are meant to guarantee ‘government of the people, by the people, for the people’.
Justice and Development Party (AKP) leader and then Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan won the 2014 presidential election in Turkey with 51.79% of the vote. The AKP, which currently also forms the government in Turkey, obtained the votes of roughly half of the Turkish electorate in last year’s parliamentary elections. Clearly, both the president and the government have a democratic mandate to govern.
The capacity to discuss and debate in a civilised manner is one of the hallmarks of our democratic edifice
Hence, the overall reaction against the attempted coup on July 15 and expressions of support for the democratically elected institutions was perfectly justified. However, the actions taken by the government in the aftermath of the coup attempt are cause for serious concern.
Claiming that it is carrying out a legitimate security operation, around 35,000 public servants have been sacked by the government. These include judges and prosecutors, governors, university deans and other educators, policemen and soldiers. It is also reported that around 20 news websites that were critical of the Turkish government have been blocked.
The EU has warned the Turkish government that should it go ahead with seeking to reintroduce the death penalty to punish some of those involved in the attempted coup, there would be serious repercussions on Turkey’s bid to join the Union.
Meeting in Brussels on Monday, all 28 EU foreign ministers (including the British Foreign Secretary) issued a statement on the situation in Turkey in which they reiterated that ‘the unequivocal rejection of the death penalty is an essential element of the Union acquis’.
Speaking after the meeting, EU High Representative for Foreign Affairs Federica Mogherini said that “no country can join the European Union if it introduced the death penalty”. German Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier also made it very clear that the “reintroduction of the death penalty would prevent successful negotiations to join the EU”.
It is good that the EU is once again referring to its fundamental values because my fear is that in all the post-Brexit referendum reactions we have had so far, in our zeal to try to rekindle popular support for the EU, we risk losing sight of the underlying reasons that bind us together.
We do need to address issues that citizens face in their daily lives and seek to communicate better how the EU has improved their rights and their quality of life. However, we also need to keep harping on the bigger picture. I agree with those who state that people no longer connect with romantic notions of European integration as a guarantor of peace and prosperity in the continent and beyond.
Most Europeans do not recall the devastation of World War II and those who do might be tempted to recall the past with nostalgia in the hope of restoring ‘greatness’ to their nation.
Europe needs a new narrative. The terrorist attacks in France have been rightly described as an attack on our way of life. Innocent persons enjoying themselves in a café or restaurant, at a concert at the Bataclan or watching fireworks and celebrating their national day were the targets as were those passengers at Brussels airport and Maalbeek metro station on March 22.
We need to keep reminding ourselves that we can never compromise on ‘respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities’ which are mentioned in the Treaty on the European Union as the values on which the Union is founded.
We can never take these values for granted. When under threat, we could easily be tempted to legitimate short-term solutions that would undermine the entire edifice – and here I don’t mean just the EU but the entire foundations of European society as we know it today.
All of this has repercussions at a local level. Take for example the tone adopted by certain individuals and organisations when discussing issues such as the morning-after pill, especially those who seem to claim some kind of monopoly over ‘the truth’.
It is worrying how whenever an issue that is somehow related to religion crops up, we are not able to discuss in a rational manner. Much as I genuinely respect him, I was disappointed by Archbishop Charles Scicluna’s comments that seemed to compare members of Parliament who voted to decriminalise the vilification of religion to those responsible for the death of Jesus Christ.
He has, of course, every right to say whatever he likes though such words will unfortunately only serve to strengthen the growing antagonism by a sector of our population towards others it conceives as being part of some sort of conspiracy to eradicate religion in Malta while regarding any measure aimed at strengthening democracy and the respect for human rights and the rule of law as another move in that direction.
No individual or group in our societies should feel threatened in any way just because others have different ideas, views and opinions. The capacity to discuss and debate in a civilised manner is one of the hallmarks of our democratic edifice and the only way forward if we truly wish to overcome the real threats we face.