It’s one of the major reasons why in 2002, Chirac and Le Pen ran their campaigns  on security, which made the distinctly un-authoritarian Socialist candidate Lionel Jospin loook quite far out to sea.

Sarkozy, with a distinctly more right wing agenda than Chirac ever ran, has moved from one enemy to the next.

First, he came for the racaille, which roughly translates as ‘scum’ or perhaps more appropriately the ‘chavs’. Then he went after the burka, a post I’ll write soon enough.

His next target to divert attention from his flailing popularity ratings is to attack… the gypsies!

It follows from this weekend in Loir-et-Cher, where the police shot a gypsy in a road-block related incident. Upset by this, the ‘travallers’ began a rampage of vandalism in the local villages.

This morning in Cabinet, he thus announced a special meeting on the 28th to “tackle the problems posed by ‘travellers’ and their behavior” while also announcing the expulsion of all ‘irregular’  encampments.

Sarko’s “hyperpresidentialism” is well known, but I really do not consider this, though unacceptable, to be an event worthy of such a large amount of attention from the President of the French Republic. At the very limit, it’s something for the Prime Minister, and certainly more in the domain of the Interior Minister (that’s the Home Secretary.)

I come back to my introduction for a moment; the French right always plays on fear, and is an expert in focusing on a detail to turn it into a generalisation. It scares people.

The next issue is that he called the entire community gens du voyage which I translate as ‘travellers’ or at least ‘travelling people’. It of course supposed to imply that the entire group have no fixed domicile, don’t pay taxes, don’t have incomes (fortune telling not included) yet do have cars and spend a lot of time begging.

The French have never liked gypsies (they’re not French, after all), but for Sarkozy to start finger-wagging at such a group, no matter how marginal and poorly integrated (probably their fault as much as the French’s) at what is quite simply just delinquency and petty crime, which are by no means rare activities, seems misleading to me.

Francophones might like to read this piece from a journalist at Le Figaro as well, here.

In a move which resembles the recent ban on Minarets in Switzerland, the Bulgarian Prime Minister, Boiko Borissov, and his ruling party GERB have publicly endorsed the campaign launched by the ultra-nationalist party, Ataka, which states:

Bulgarian is the official language of Bulgaria and there is no place for news in Turkish on the public broadcaster.

The subtext behind all of this really comes down to the role of state broadcasting, and the suppression of the Turkish (that is to say Muslim) minority. It is a standard act of aggression against an ethnic minority, misguided and twisted into a regressive stand against Islam and immigration.

Ethnic Turks make up 15% of Bulgaria’s population.

It is the responsibility of the state broadcaster to promote and encourage diversity, it is the channel not for a minority, or a majority, but the entire nation. Compare the situation with the state broadcaster in Britain, and the relationship between Wales and the United Kingdom. The BBC has several broadcasts in the Welsh language for cultural and linguistic purposes, which are not restricted to factual programs, despite the general decline in native Welsh speakers. However, the Turks are not demanding that their language is compulsory in schools or that sign posts are bilingual, the issue pertains to one news program.

Here, we see that language is the key barrier to society and it is typically reactionary to suggest that these news broadcasts entrench segregation. In fact, I would suggest that the newscasts improve cultural cohesion. The Turkish population will better understand Bulgarian news which enables them to appreciate and participate in community activities, helping them to integrate with the majority. In addition, it is also useful for native Bulgarians to familiarise themselves with Turks and the Turkish language.

Thus this proposed ban on a single 15 minute long newscast is purely symbolic. The state broadcaster’s schedule is not packed with Turkish-language programs any more than the Swiss cityscape was infested by the five minarets.

The timing is also entirely cynical. Though the campaign was started five years ago, it has only gained real traction thanks to the fear of globalisation and migration exacerbated by the financial crisis. Politically, the cause has gained credibility and profited from the result of the Swiss referendum.

This referendum, like most referenda, will not be democratic. It will bring out the tyranny of the Majority designed to enforce conformity. The only consequence will of the ban will be to strike a blow against the Turkish (again, Muslim) population and make them less welcome in their own country, which in turn makes them less inclined to participate, which strengthens segregation and fragments society.

This post was written on the request of a Bulgarian associate of mine who asked me to investigate the issue. If you have any ‘requests’ or issues you would like me to turn my attention to, please send me a message via the contact page and I’ll be happy to oblige.

Typically, it is the Right and Far-Right which profits from and occupies itself with concerns over identity. Excluding Gordon Brown’s occasional remarks on possibly considering planning a “British Day” and citizenship classes, British National identity tends to be restricted to the hard-line Eurosceptic Tories and UKIPpers as a means to denounce the European Union and the core campaign front of the British National Party.

In France, by contrast, National Identity has been a strong recurring theme since President de Gaulle in the 1960s. Even now, Nicolas Sarkozy has launched a campaign for a ‘great debate on National Identity’ in events organised across the country.

However, though I am well known for clear opinions and a willingness to discuss contentious issues in free, pluralistic and useful debate, Sarkozy’s campaign has none of these three traits. It is not free because it is his government which sets the agenda, asks the questions and controls the answers. It is not pluralistic because it tries to hammer diversity into a single rigid identity. It is not useful because it is nothing but a divisive tool designed to stigmatise foreigners.

National Identity, as opposed to regional identity, is an artificial Napoleonic concept. As such, it is driven by the state as a means to define a citizen’s place in order to encourage and pressure people into conformity and submission.

Identity is not assigned, fixed and then closed; it is based on a set of political and social principles which are open and organic. This is why the EU struggles time after time to create a European Identity. The French Republic, above all else, is founded on its liberty of expression, its equality of rights and its fraternity of people. Equally, Britain is based on values of justice, tolerance and respect.

Thus the Far Right can only profit from National Identity using an outdated and narrow definition. As part of Sarkozy’s debate, Jean Marie Le Pen, leader of the Front National, held a rally in Marseilles (he is standing in the PACA Regional Election) claiming the debate swung in his party’s favour. This announcement was backed up by the polls; the FN has now hit 10% in the region; up four points since October. He promised a “cruel surprise” for Nicolas Sarkozy in March.

In my summer by-election, there was a party known as Nissa Rebelda, which is also known as Nissa Identiaire; which is a good example of fascist “identity politics” though fairly new they did equally well as the FN.

Similarly, in Britain, Nick Griffin was attacked on Question Time for hijacking Churchill’s image by declaring that he would have been a BNP member. He stole an important symbol of National Identity to use for his own political gain, suggesting that he would protect Britain from a perceived threat using Churchill standing up to the Nazis as an ironic metaphor.

The threat has traditionally been on racial and religious grounds, well before nations were founded. Now, as academics (and myself) discuss the nature of globalisation, national identity is attached to immigration and sovereignty despite, or as a consequence of the fact that national borders are becoming more porous and nations more co-dependent.

As sovereignty is increasingly shared and people are increasingly mobile, National Identity as a political construct can no longer exist as a single, rigid image. Identity is a perception. If someone feels that their identity is threatened it is often the case that their identity is at odds with the identity of another.

Though concerns about immigration and citizenship should not be dismissed, it is not acceptable to suggest that, in the name of National Identity; someone is “less” British or has “less” right to be in the country than someone else.

This is the politics of fear; bitterness and aggression. The discussion on National Identity is not framed around who you are; it is about who you are not.