The new Assembly or the philosophy of the mess

André Bercoff is a journalist and writer. His latest book, Donald Trump, the reasons for the anger was published by First (2016).

In politics as elsewhere, it may be good not to know anything, but it should not be abused. Many of them rejoiced, and legitimately, the eruption of young shoots of civil society in the Republic on the Move. The New World was finally emerging on the benches of the Palais Bourbon, sweeping away the tired caciques, the jaded septuagenarians, and the old government formations in disarray. Still, being a Member of Parliament requires a certain amount of knowledge about the functioning of the legislative apparatus: making the difference between an article and an amendment, knowing how to formulate your question in such a way that it does not appear as a sabir with a strange taste Besides ; from this point of view, the present spectacle appears, according to whether one belongs to the sonorous majority or to the indignant opposition, joyful or heartbreaking.

It must be recognized that an almost zoological dimension has just been reached with deputies who vote against an article of the law of “confidence in public action” which they had nevertheless ratified in committee. What is perhaps called in psychoanalysis happy schizophrenia; in reality here, the other side of an amateurism that will no doubt fade when neophytes learn both the basics of the profession and the mastery of their affects. For the moment, they seem to be working blindly while waiting for the instructions of Messrs. Ferrand and Castaner, and the baton of the conductor of Rugy: in the absence of these, all despair is permitted, which leaves to the pleasant actors of La France Insoumise the leisure to indulge in the role-playing games of which they are, for lack of real power, so fond.

But all of this is nothing but nonsense alongside amendments which have just been voted on and which definitively render ineligible any candidate who has made discriminatory statements, public insults, provocations to racial hatred: the whole vocabulary of associations " human rights” one-way, anti-racist double standards, which in fact consists of censoring and paralyzing anyone who dares to speak out outside the crosswalks of the newspeak police. Let's be clear: it is in no way a question here of endorsing or admitting racism wherever it comes from and hatred from wherever it springs. But as the dominant word and the always unique thought focus on making guilty and condemning only those who do not think like them, we realize that the cursor is set in such a way as to strike only on one side. Today, this targets politicians and already intellectuals, tomorrow comedians and soon – why not – citizens. I was recently re-reading a collection of the magazine Hara-kiri 60s-70s; I listened to the monologues of Pierre Desproges, Coluche and others: today they would all be in the crosshairs of the new Inquisition. Beneath the cobblestones of false parliamentary debates, Big Brother's beach stretches out. Regressively. Dangerously.