I get worried when politicians say that when elected they will make something normally considered a right into an obligation, and that this will make us all better citizens. Making a right compulsory is seen as a quick fix to make people feel they’re all part of the same community, working together in the same direction and loving every moment of it. In this election the list includes compulsory voting, compulsory membership of unions and compulsory civic service.

Three of the four principal candidates in this French election have said that when elected they will set up a system of “service civique obligatoire” – comparable to the old national service which was abandoned (in France) only six years ago. The idea is not a bad one, getting young people involved in the community, broadening their horizons and teaching them to help those who can’t help themselves: la cohésion sociale. But why add the word obligatoire? Or, more provocatively, why does not its presence create a storm of protest? I think all of the several projets de loi put forward over the past year or so, by both parties, have included the O word. As I understand it (and comments from French readers about this would be very welcome), the basis of the French Republic is equality, and so what goes for one must, obligatoirement, go for all. You cannot have some people doing civic service and others not. Whereas, for reasons that escape me, in Britain and north America that is felt to be, if not wrong then unnecessary. Since that struck Tocqueville when he visited north America 175 years ago, it is not something new.

Each candidate has a slightly different scheme – with the period of work ranging from a few weeks to six months. Some see it as a mix of military and civic service, others as purely civic. Then there is the thorny question of pay: some candidates are in favour of direct payment (the Socialist Party suggests one third of the minimum wage) others prefer to set the work against paying for the young person’s studies. But in reality either way would cancel out what is heralded as one of the scheme’s great benefits: le brassage, the meeting and mixing of people from different backgrounds. On a third of the minimum wage you can only afford to live with your parents and work as close to home as possible: it would be no different from school.

A recent study by the senate shows that organised civic service failed in four European countries: Belgium, Holland and Italy, where it was to have been compulsory, and Spain where it was to have been voluntary. In all four cases it came unstuck because of union opposition and/or spiralling costs, and I see no reason why that should not be the case in France too. I know in Britain, after a couple of experiments (Millenium Volunteers and Young Volunteer Challenge), the government launched “Youth Volunteering” last May, shortened to “V”, which is actually run mainly by 16 to 25 year olds. The Conservative party launched something similar last October. But always the emphasis is on voluntary. Does it work in the UK? And if so why does the idea of voluntary not catch on in France? Are the two concepts, voluntary and republican, incompatible?

This entry was posted on Tuesday, January 23rd, 2007 at 6:04 am and is filed under General France, Political. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.