Introduction

"Laïcité" is a relatively new conception,accpeted in France in its present form since 1905, and still badly understood outside our country. Even the word is often used in its French version, as in many languages no litteral translation is possible.
It will therefore be useful, rather than trying to give a precise definition, to outline and explain the origines, the present and the future implications. "Laïcité" has two bases : one ethical ( a complete freedom of moral conscience ), the other legal ( the separation of churches and religion from the state). It establishes the difference between two distinct worlds : general interest and individual conviction.
It has also become important to recognize "the existence of a multitude of different cultures "which can only grow with the European integration of countries so different from each other. The problem is to know how to manage these cultural differences without losing our conception of republican universality. Finally, the fear of losing one's personal identity which appears with all forms all integration (etnhic, cultural and especially religious) sees in "laïcité", rather than the society's choice and the possibility of social peace, another risk of losing this identity.

"Laïcité" is one of life's rules in a democratic society. It imposes that all men are given, without distinction of class, origine or denomination, the means to be themselves, to have the freedom of choice, to be responsible for their own maturity and masters of their destiny.

Top

I. History - French specificity

The "laïque" claim developped mainly where to chuch, in France we mean the Catholic Roman Church, wanted to exercise a totalitarian power in its strictest sense, taht is to say in all aspects of the civilian, political and economical society, basically where religion had all the power.

Successive desires, albeit rather vague, of political or spiritual liberation, or both together, manifested against this power. In the Middle-Ages it was inside the catholic church that these movements were born, but they were quickly classed as heretical and rapidly overcome. The idea evolved from the first reformers until the 18th century philosophers, but was still associated with two different ideas of liberation :
- Freedom of ideas taking over little by little from obligatory beliefs;
- A society demanding political liberty.

Against which , the catholic church, led by a papacy, holding on a temporal power not even supported by its fundamental texts, preferred to hide behind a complete refusal of all liberation groups. In France, the thousand year old allegance between the King and the Church made religious disputes unavoidable once political disputes had started.
In this frame of mind, in the 18th century philosophers led by "Enlightenment", led ideological attacks on two sorts of absolutism, Royal and Theological. The claiming for a "freedom of thought" and the "reference to reason" intensified this movement made famous by Condorcet.
In the 19th century, the progressive development of the republican idea, its holding on to platform of revolutionary liberties, of social progress, and the freeing of sould all kinds of darkness, brought the finishing touch to this evolution.
The separation of the church from the state could have symbolized the achievement of an essential step had it not been continually doubted, either directly or indirectly by the attacks of those who remained sure that man in incapable of fully appreciating the effects of his total freedom of conscience.
Though, in our history, all the big uprisings for liberty and justice fought for "laïcité", all the reactionnary periods saw the return of ecclesiastical domination. The dictatorship of Vichy of which, 50 years later, certain consequences have not been dealt with - is the latest example.

The Renaissance, the Reformation, the Revolution the Republic : these different stages in th formation of the "laïque" idea have given the 21st century Frenchman a special place in the construction of the new Europe. The question which is asked of him at this moment is clear.
- Either he gives up this specificity and he abandons eventually the enormous progress which he has accomplished, perhaps quicker than others, over the centuries.
-Or he is persuaded that the "laïque" idea, far from being an obstacle to European integration, can be a powerful help to speed up the unification.

Top

II. "Laïque" values

The "laïque" humanism relies on the principle of total freedom of conscience.

Freedom of the mind : liberation in regard to all dogmas ; the right to believe or not to believe in God ; autonomy of thought concerning religious, potitical and economical constraints ; emancipation of life styles in relation to taboos, prevailing ideas and dogmatic rules.

"Laïcité" aims to liberate children and adults from everything which alienates or corrupts their minds, particularly atavistic beliefs, prejudices, preconceived ideas, dogmas, oppressive ideology and cultural, economical, social, political or religious pressure. "Laïcité" aims to develop in human nature, within th framework of a permanent intellectual, moral and civic formation, a critical mind along with a feeling of solidarity and brotherhood.

The freedom of expression is the corollary to total freedom of conscience. It is the right, and the material possibility to speak, to write and to distribute individual and collective thoughts. The new technics of communication make this requirement even more vital. However, in this field of information and communication, more than elsewhere, there must be a special vigilance in face of the powerful means of manipulation and perversion of the mind.

The laïc morality which follows is simple. It is based on the principle of mutual tolerance and the respect of others as well as oneself. The good is all that liberates, all that emancipate ; th evil is all that enslaves and degrades. "Laïcité " aims in this context to give man the means to acquire a complete lucidity and full responsibility for his thoughts and his actions (acts founded on the needs of social life and the promotion of individual liberty) it is essential in the construction of social harmony and the reinforcement of public spiritedness. It tends to institute, beyond ideological, community or national differences, a human society favourable to everyones enlightenment, a society from which all exploitation or conditioning of man by man, all fanatical spirit, hate and violence will be excluded.

Evidently, tolerance is a logical consequence of the previous values, failing when social harmony is jeopardized. Even so tolerance has no sens if it is not mutual, and it will always be limited by intolerance, refusal of others, racialism and totalitarianism.

The refusal of racialism and of segregation of all sorts is inseparable from the "laïque" ideal. The new society that we would like cannot simply be a juxtaposition of communities who for better ignore each other or for worse killl each other groups. A society founded on peace cannot build itself on definitive separation of cultural, linguistic, religious, sexist or other groups. The transition is too easy from separation to segregation, rivalry and conflicts. Even if the separation is presented as a vital necessity for development.

The "laïque" ideal can in no way adapt to the idea of "separated development" often practised in Anglo-Saxon societies. The very principle of "positive discrimination " could not lead to the liberation of any group. Th only way to social development is integration - different from assimilation - everybody participating to a community of free citizens with equal rights and equal duties. Th only acceptable social groups are founded on choice, liberty and open-mindedness.

The "laïque" moral code finally leads to an necessary social justice : equal rights and equal chances. Free education, schools, the right to information and open-mindedness are the conditions of this equality.

Top

III. "Laïque" Practises - A civic and social status

Above and beyond its principles, "laïcité" is an attitude of which th fields of application cover all aspects of th society.
The principle of this civic, juridical and institutional status is simple, lt is based on a clear distinction, for each citizen, between a public sphere and a private sphere.

- The private sphere, personal, concerned with total freedom of conscience, where philosophical and metaphysical convictions, beliefs, religious practises and community life styles are expressed.

- The public sphere, citizen, where the citizen evolves socially, economically, politecally and juridically.

The rules are clearly defined and based on human rights. No group, political party, sect or church, can claim to penetrate, or even more to turn the functioning of th republican society to its advantage. The separation of the church from the state is the cornerstone of social "laïcisme". lt admits neither exception nor modulation nor adjustment. Its totality and its integrality are the conditions for its existence. It is the only way to allow everyone to believe or not to betieve whilst freeing the churches themselves from official relationships with the state. If the churches want to exist, let the churchgoers fund them, religion being a matter of personal conviction.

If the state garanties total freedom for the cults, as for freedom of thought, it does not favour any, neither does it favour any community, no more financially than politically. What is more, it's not up to th state to straighten out relationships beetween different churches when it doesn't recognize any. In the general scope of its political attributions, it surveys the exercise of individual freedom for everyone, of public order and of social harmony between citizens.

From the moment when the state considers that religion has become a private concern, which only gets noticed when its demonstrations disturb public order, in all logic, the churches cannnot claim any advantages, any privileges or any special treatment. Neither can they be endowed with official status outside of the common law governing th freedom of associations. Finally republican law could not therefore recognize the crimes of blasphemy or sacrilege which would inevitably lead to institutionalized censorship.

The first "laïque" act for a country is the independence of the state and all public services from any religious institution or influence. The "Laïcisation" of individual status as of services considered essential for the smooth running of the society, has been one of the main aspects of the exercise for th freedom and the equality of rights.
- Birth, life and death considered no more uniquely from the religious angle or as joint estate, but seen as individual freedom.
- Equality for all in the face of public services. The possible membership of a religious, ethnie or social group, cannot be considered as far as the user is concemed. Officially mentioning this membership must be considered as discriminatory. lt seems evident that the very notion of public service is closely linked to the practice of "laïcité".

Civil law is th only one empowered to organize the field of civic and social life. The republican representatives, elected or civil-servants, respect in return during th exercise of their functions an absolute neutrality in relation to individual or collective practices and observe a strict obligation of reserve.

Finally, the "laïque" and republican school must be kept free from all interference, either economical, denominational or ideological, even when disguised as apparently cultural. School is not a place for manifestations, neither for the confrontation of differences of opinion: it is a place where, of a common accord, all particularism and all similar conditions are forgotten. School must prohibit alt forms of proselytism.

All that has been said precedently does not mean that the republic denies all communitary adherences. In fact they exist and they are respectable as long as they do not question the principles of individual liberty, human dignity and equality.

Top

IV. The future - New fields of application

In a world characterized by the most profound disruption of economical, political, social and cultural structures that we have known for centuries, "laïcité" appears as the response to this fundamental question : what can be done to remedy the anxiety, the anguish, th indifference, the abandon of all sens of responsability, the violence ?

In a society ever more multicultural, "laïcité" can teach individuals to cooperate, to find a certain understanding and harmony in their differences. We have already described the dangers of separate communities. We can see that nationalism is growing again in Europe, nourished by religious and ethnical hate. "Laïcité" is the only idea fiable to bring back lasting peace to the Balkans, an example amongst many.

There is still much to do, even in Europe, where countries having political and juridical systems approaching the French "laïc" system or being able to evolve in this way are rare. The Establishment logics, with regards to religion, still largely dominate. However, some signs prompt us to think that evolution is possible : modification of the German nationality laws, more and more questions are being posed, in this same country, about taxing religion.

Even in France, the "laïc" idea is far from being universally accepted. It must still be defended and enlarged.

- The separation of the churches from th state still suffers from too many intolerable geographical restrictions (Alsace-Moselle, Guyane, TOM).

The ever more frequent juridical interventions, notably to Settle problem linked to religious practices (e.g. the wearing of the Islamic veil in school), is disturbing. lt's up to the Republic to define unitary measures and to hold by them. Society life must not rsolve itself to be directed by a series of jurisprudences concerning the practices and relationships between different communities. There is a very severe americanisation of community life which questions the foundations of our republican society.

- Scientific progress must be freed of all influence from pressure groups, notably religious. General interest and human respect must be th only context for this progress.

- The "laïcisation" of "life styles" (love and sexuality, death, illness) is not finished. The liberty to choose one's way of life, the social modes of life for couples and families, the fundamental garanties for liberty in this context, children's rights and dignity, are so many fields of application for a "laïcité" as garantor for the freedom of body and spirit.

- in the composition of moral or ethical committees which are formed here and there, it is important to favour in the choice of members their abilities and not their convictions. For shouldn't th aim of these commitees be to see that the necessary conditions are sufficient for the exercise of liberty and the respect of human dignity, rather than to try to keep a false balance between rival communities ?

- Finally, culture and artistic creation, and also information and communication participate to the development of awareness which is no longer reserved for schools. It is necessary however to permanently ensure that no religious or dogmatic taboos and also no economical or idealogical pressure groups can impose the slightest limitation to liberty, even by economically stifling the vitality of minority groups. It is in the name of "laïcité" that we must denounce ait forms of single-mindedness.

Top

By way of a conclusion

"Laïcité" is not an outdated idea but on the contrary a progressive idea, and has many fields of action open before it.

"Laïcité" has become institutuional. It has a legal framework and its proper rules. Its rules apply to the whole social guild and it is not the result of progresive contracts beetwen communoties or groups. there is, after all, only one sort of "laïcité" which cannot be qualified : it can be either "new" nor "plurial".

"Laïcité" is a notion founded upon humanistic principles built up over the years. It is an assertion with a strong signification and value in favour of individual liberty. It is the strongest guarantor of civil peace. It includes a personal moral and a social ethic. It is an action and will, even resistance ; resistance to the tendancy to renounce, to the confort of giving in to singlemindedness.

Top