A while ago I wrote a piece on the discussion in the French NPA taking issue with François Coustal’s views on secularism and standing candidates who wear the hijab. These things provoke very different responses in Britain and France.
François has written this reply which I’ve rather hastily and inelegantly translated. Access the French version by clicking at the bottom of the article.
The contribution – "It happened near you" – that I wrote for the discussion document " Religion, Emancipation, Feminism, Secularism "has provoked some reactions outside France. A friend in Britain has criticised it on his blog.
More impressively, it has provoked a response of the Political Bureau of the SAP (Danish section of the Fourth International).
Having mentioned events outside France, it is natural that it has caused a reaction. What was surprising is the great difficulty of friends – whatever their analysis and political interpretations, and I understand perfectly that they can be very different from mine – to simply recognise the obvious: the experiences mentioned were unhappy experiences and the results were bad . Conversely, I hope that the NPA after its poor performance in regional elections will be brave enough to admit its defeat and clear sighted enough to have a real discussion on the causes, which are actually different, of this failure.
As I do not doubt that this discussion will be ongoing here are some answers to Liam. A few remarks about the text of the SAP will follow.
First, a preliminary remark specifically designed for British (or Danish) comrades. My contribution was unambiguously a contribution to the debate in the NPA about religion, feminism, the hijab etc. It was not for me to explain from Paris to British (or Danish) anti-capitalists what they should do – or what they should have done – in London (or Copenhagen). Although a few years ago, leaders of the revolutionary left British did not deny themselves the right on different occasions to say what they thought was wrong with positions taken by the LCR about the Islamic veil or the rights of the people of Kosovo, for example.
My conception of relationships with organisations of the anti-capitalist left in other countries is rather the need to avoid lecturing. But also that we can learn from others and their positive experiences as well as their negative experiences. Perhaps we can even try to avoid making the same mistakes .
Liam’s criticism contains questionable interpretations, misunderstandings and differences. Here is the detail.
Questionable interpretation
Contrary to the impression given by Liam, I have never written (or thought) that Salma Yaqoob was "disastrous"! Moreover, in May 2004, Rouge the weekly paper of the LCR, published an interview with Salma Yaqoob that I conducted with Antoine Boulangé. This would not have been done if we thought that Salma was "disastrous" or simply uninteresting .
All I wanted to suggest with my contribution was not that there were disastrous figures but a particular political orientation which produced disastrous results in France, Denmark and Britain. The particular political direction that I criticise is that which is founded on the belief that to gain a base in working class neighbourhoods (or in the most exploited and discriminated layers) you should address people as members of a community (and even, in fact, a religious community). This trend is not limited to standing candidates who wear headscarves. But standing candidates who wear headscarves does not have the same impact according to the historical, political, ideological context in each country. This is one of the elements of this type of politics.
To be quite clear: for me, it is neither Salma Yaqoob, nor Asmaa Abdol-Hamid Ilham Moussaid who are "problems". The problem for me is the political orientation, in France and Europe, of a number of friends and organisations of the anti-capitalist and revolutionary left. Moreover they are white, atheists and absolutely 300% Marxist materialists – who believe that "for the good of the cause," we can pull the wool over people’s eyes (? "ruser") , or become complacent vis-à-vis religion and other forms of oppression. So they choose to address the workers, who are also believers and women workers, who are also believers, as believers rather than as the oppressed. It’s politically wrong and it does not work .
Misunderstanding
Liam think I is on thin ice by claiming that "Salma Yaqoob, a militant Muslim woman wearing the hijab" was "presented as powerful evidence of the possible alliance between the revolutionary left provided it renounces its prejudices " and the" Muslim community ". Clearly, there is a misunderstanding: the controversial phrase -" as long as it gives up its prejudices" – is applied to the revolutionary left not to Salma Yaqoob! But it’s true, this remark was very explicit .
Specifically: During the last decade (before the founding of the NPA), as part of efforts by the LCR to build a network, a space for debate and political convergence with the various organisations of the European Anti-Capitalist Left, I had – like other leaders of the LCR – the opportunity to discuss with the leaders of the SWP, the main organisation of the British revolutionary left on several occasions and in various settings, including several annual conferences of the SWP. I confirm absolutely both the presence of Muslim Association of Britain, in its capacity as a Muslim organisation, in the foundation of Respect as well as the presence of Salma Yaqoob, with her headscarf, in the leadership of the Coalition were presented to me as proof of the relevance of a political orientation based on the alliance of the revolutionary left and Muslim organisations and personalities.
Without wishing to get too polemical, but using the same frankness with which I expressed myself privately and in public, leaders of the SWP regretted that the same thing hadn’t happened in France. They said it can not have happened because the LCR had a "rigid" position of on the hijab and remained committed to secularism, a concept which seemed to them less than revolutionary and less than proletarian. It’s that- including the use of Salma Yaqoob as an argument in favour of a political orientation – that I wanted to highlight.
Democratic debate?
On this point – the existence of democratic debate prior to standing candidates wearing the hijab – Liam is right and I was wrong to write a little too quickly than the standing of candidates wearing hijabs resulted from "serious debate and democratic decision ", at least for Great Britain.
There was no discussion. No doubt because this issue was not part of a debate within the SWP, nor within the different organisations of the radical left. Especially because, presumably, this issue is much less debated, both in political circles and more generally in society, than is the case
in France. Women candidates wearing hijabs was not in itself a "break". The Labour Party, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats also do it occasionally.
By contrast, as regards Denmark, I am able to confirm the nomination of Asmaa was democratically debated long and passionately by the Red Green Alliance, including at its annual national conference that preceded the elections. I am able to confirm this, having attended as a guest from the leadership of the LCR.
Quotations from Lenin
About the possibility of believers, who defend party policy, to be candidates, Liam wrote that "purists may even find quotations from Lenin" (in favour of this thesis). It’s clever. On one hand is the ideological weapon of mass destruction, Lenin! On the other Liam vaguely suspects that starting a quotations contest could earn him the charge of dogmatism, so he defuses using humour: the word "purist" .
Lenin is not necessarily an indisputable reference on all subjects, especially in a party like the NPA. To be quite honest I’m not a great fan of this on some subjects .
This "argument from authority " always comes back to saying that Marx or Lenin said it so it’s necessarily true. That’s not the pinnacle of critical thinking. The use of quotes leave me extremely sceptical unless they are scrupulously used in context. The rare bits of Lenin’s writings dealing with religion are by no means universally applicable. They are marked by a very specific context – the place of Orthodox religion at the start of the 20th century. I doubt they can help us much respond to issues raised in the metropolis of a highly developed imperialist power at the beginning of the 21st century.
Now, if we insist, and to relax the atmosphere a little , here is A Best of Lenin on Religion:
"Religion is an aspect of spiritual oppression which afflicts always and everywhere the masses (…)"
"Religion is a kind of spiritual alcohol in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, and their claim to an existence worthy of man. "
"The conscious worker today, formed by large industry, educated by the city, rejects with contempt the religious prejudices (…)"
"The modern proletariat on the side of socialism that uses science to fight the fumes of religion (…)"
More? No problem!
"(…) unawareness, ignorance or obscurantism in the form of religious belief (…)"
"Fight the fog of religion"
"Our propaganda necessarily includes that of atheism."
"(…) To translate and diffuse among the masses of French atheist and demystifying literature of the eighteenth century (…)
Thus, Lenin, himself, does not completely despise the
Enlightenment, the French Revolution or " French exceptionalism"
One for the road? "The religious stupidity of humanity"
Of course comrades may also find other quotes demonstrating the more "tactical" part of Lenin’s approach to religion and believers. But that was just for fun: quotes do not prove anything. And especially not that Lenin would have strongly supported the idea of a candidate wearing the hijab! But personally, I think he probably exaggerated a little. And I think that within the NPA, it would be reasonable to talk about religion and especially about believers in more measured terms. The best thing is probably not to speak about it.
Back to Respect
In my contribution, I didn’t claim at any time that "the hijab of Salma Yaqoob" had alone caused the split of Respect! This is ridiculous, especially given the fairly close views of the SWP and the other protagonists in the debate on this subject.
In contrast, I argue that to attribute all the responsibility for the split to the SWP’s attitude, which itself was based solely on the desire to maintain strict control over the coalition and caused Galloway to feel that "the organisation was not building, even though it was thought that elections were imminent" (as written by Liam) seems a bit … short.
The process that led to the split of Respect cannot be reduced to a power struggle. There was politics. In the exchanges that preceded the split specific political issues have also been raised. The functioning and building of Respect, as Liam mentions. Absolutely, but not only that.
The hijab? Certainly not. But communalism, yes. Especially in the choice of candidates in local elections. In the support and funding which was sometimes a little "cross-class" of these campaigns. There was also the absence of any possibility of democratic control over public figures in Respect. Some of these criticisms had also been made previously, especially by members of Socialist Resistance. They had been fought and marginalised by the SWP, then they switched to "protect" George Galloway and Salma Yaqoob from all criticism.
One can think that at the time of the split the SWP had understood these criticisms, albeit a bit late. One can think it was fairly sincere. One can think it was looking for excuses. But the question remains, regardless of who makes these criticisms, do they have a basis?
For the record and for purposes of information: at the time of the split from Respect, the LCR’s leadership was very guarded about giving enthusiastic support for the comrades who stayed with Galloway and Yaqoob, even though some of them were members of the Fourth International. We gave both sides equal coverage in our press.
Secularism a Threat?
At the end of his text Liam expressed the concern that secularism, a once revolutionary concept is now changing into its opposite as France is changing and that " militant secularism is used by the right as a cover for Islamophobia. "
Pure nonsense! The defence of secularism is of not the policy advocated and carried out by the French right, principally Sarkozy, the government and the UMP. They sometimes refer to "the Republic" and "republican values".
But as regards secularism, now famous statements of Sarkozy on the priest and the teacher – "In the transmission of values and learning the difference between good and evil, the teacher can never replace the priest or pastor" – leave no doubt about the violently anti-secular government. Especially if one takes into account the historical and immediate relationship between secularism in France and school. Having chosen to highlight the "priest" at the expense of "teacher" is heavy with meaning and is a break with Sarkozy’s predecessors, including his predecessors on the right, who felt obliged to refer to secularism.
Sarkozy’s policy is deeply communalist: simultaneously maintaining or extending the privileges of the dominant Catholic religion and attempting to use religion – all major religions, Islam included – as a means of social pacification and policing. This is what Sarkozy did, when he was still Minister of the Interior and established the Comité Français du Culte Musulman.
To claim that in France today the problem comes from militant secularism giving a cover to Islamophobia simply does not match the
reality of French society and its political debates. So I could easily repeat to Liam to his own advice: "When you give your opinion on what is happening in another country, it is common sense to ensure that you are familiar with the facts."
But it seems more respectful to see it not from ignorance of the facts but political disagreements. Liam and I are obviously in disagreement about possible relationships between secularism and what he calls "Islamophobia", as regards France. In the same way that Liam and I disagree on certain aspects of the political experience that constituted Respect in Britain.
To really understand the debate that is going through the NPA, Liam, and other comrades in the anti-capitalist left or in other countries – should take into account the following element: the emotion that has been caused and continues to be generated by standing candidates wearing the hijab among many activists and activists of the NPA. This extends to the activists within the circles in which we work. It is no doubt due in part to the "secularism" which is part of "French specificity". But it is mainly due to a commitment to some values and universal emancipation . To avoid any misunderstanding, these "values" are not those of the "French Republic" But the ones that have been forged by more than two centuries of struggles of the revolutionary labour movement and the women’s liberation movement!
Pur contresens ! La défense de la laïcité n’est évidemment pas – et d’aucune manière – la politique défendue et menée par la droite française, c’est-à-dire principalement Sarkozy, le gouvernement et l’UMP. Ils font parfois référence à « la République » et aux « valeurs républicaines ». Mais, en ce qui concerne la laïcité, les déclarations désormais célèbres de N. Sarkozy sur le prêtre et l’instituteur – « Dans la transmission des valeurs et dans l’apprentissage de la différence entre le bien et le mal, l’instituteur ne pourra jamais remplacer le curé ou le pasteur » – ne laissent aucun doute sur la dimension violemment anti-laïque du gouvernement. Surtout si l’on prend en compte le rapport immédiat et historique en France entre laïcité et école ! Avoir choisi de mettre en avant « le prêtre » au détriment de « l’instituteur » est particulièrement lourd de sens et constitue précisément une rupture avec les prédécesseurs de Sarkozy, y compris ses prédécesseurs de droite, qui se sentaient obligés de se référer à la laïcité ou, en tout cas, de la ménager.
A rebours de la laïcité, la politique de Sarkozy est profondément communautariste : tout à la fois le maintien voire l’extension des privilèges de la religion dominante (catholique) et la tentative d’utiliser les religions – toutes les principales religions, islam compris – comme un facteur de pacification sociale et de maintien de l’ordre. C’est notamment ce à quoi correspondaient les efforts de Sarkozy, à l’époque où il n’était encore que Ministre de l’Intérieur, pour mettre en place et en scène le Comité Français du Culte Musulman.
Expliquer qu’aujourd’hui en France le problème viendrait du militantisme laïque couverture de l’islamophobie ne correspond tout simplement pas à la réalité de la société française et de ses débats politiques. Je pourrais donc facilement renvoyer Liam à son propre conseil : « quand vous donnez votre opinion sur ce qui se passe dans un autre pays, il est de bon sens de s’assurer que vous maîtrisez bien les faits » ! Mais il me paraît plus respectueux de considérer qu’il s’agit non de méconnaissance des faits… mais de désaccords politiques ! Liam et moi sommes, à l’évidence, en désaccord sur d’éventuels rapports entre laïcité et ce qu’il appelle « islamophobie », pour ce qui est de la France. De la même manière que Liam et moi sommes, à l’évidence, en désaccord sur certains aspects de l’expérience politique qu’a constitué Respect, pour ce qui est de la Grande-Bretagne.
Et puis, surtout, pour comprendre réellement le débat qui traverse aujourd’hui le NPA, Liam -ou d’autres camarades de la gauche anticapitaliste et/ou révolutionnaire d’autres pays – devrait prendre en compte l’élément suivant : l’émotion qu’a suscitée et que suscite toujours la présentation d’une candidate voilée chez nombre de militants et de militantes du NPA – ainsi d’ailleurs qu’au sein des cercles militants que nous côtoyons – est sans doute due, pour partie, à la « laïcité », avec ce que cela implique de « spécificité française ». Mais elle est surtout due à un attachement à quelques valeurs émancipatrices et universelles… Pour éviter tout malentendu : ces « valeurs » ne sont pas celles de la « République » (française). Mais plutôt celles qui ont été forgées par plus de deux siècles de luttes du mouvement ouvrier révolutionnaire et du mouvement de libération des femmes !
Liam redux 
Leave a reply to Lobby Ludd Cancel reply