On December 15, a survey made the front page of the New York Times: it analyzes the human cost of unemployment. 26% of unemployed people have lost their homes or are threatened with eviction; 60% have had to dip into their retirement savings; 47% are without health insurance. In the United States, there is also much discussion about health care reform: the future of Barack Obama's grand project is uncertain. This does not prevent a national debate on Afghanistan, assumed by the president. In short, many problems...

In France, nothing of the sort. The government chooses to organize a "great debate" on national identity. Does this mean that our country does not know these other problems, or that this is the only real problem? Doing politics is proposing frameworks for understanding the world, in other words, posing problems. Not reflecting them, but constructing them. Nicolas Sarkozy has therefore made a political choice: to constitute national identity as a problem.

Of course, taking over from the National Front, he had already done the same with immigration throughout the 2000s. However, the novelty, since the 2007 presidential campaign, is to articulate the two in an institutional framework: a ministry. The minister is therefore there to make the problem that makes him exist. Brice Hortefeux yesterday, Éric Besson today: the occupant of this post has since been the most visible of the government - much more than the ministers of the economy, education, justice, or the environment. What was true at the time of the European elections is no less true on the eve of the regional elections. It is therefore a choice of display: organizing the public debate around national identity is not organizing it on other subjects.

It remains that it is not enough to pose a problem to succeed in imposing it. However, more than the outcry in the opposition, the concern of the Sarkozysts and the jubilation of the Villepinists augur badly for the success of this new campaign: in the prefectures, it is not a success. On the same December 15, Le Nouvel Observateur indeed publishes a survey showing the disaffection of public opinion for this debate. Despite the support of the elderly, not only do 55% of those surveyed find it "rather not or not at all necessary", but above all, only 9% believe that it is currently taking a positive turn; even right-wing sympathizers are only 15% to think so. In short, a swallow like Nadine Morano does not make the spring of national identity.

What is the problem? In other words, what problem does the "problem of national identity" encounter? It is that Nicolas Sarkozy has made voluntarism his political trademark. Not so much the laborious will as the display of triumphant will: when you want, you can. Thus in terms of immigration: setting quotas for deportations is to set goals that can be achieved - even if it means expelling at great expense passing foreigners who already had their return ticket... However, what about national identity? In 2007, the candidate had certainly posed the problem; but it was because he had a solution: the creation of the Ministry of Immigration and National Identity. The goal was therefore achieved the day after the election.

The problem is that Éric Besson thought it wise to revive the problem in 2009. It is true that the title of his charge encouraged him - after all, would the creation of a Ministry of Unemployment not have condemned its minister to treat unemployment as a problem? We must recognize the lucidity of Nicolas Sarkozy, who did not consider such an innovation: in the "culture of result" that is dear to him, it is indeed important to set only goals that can be easily achieved. In other words, it is only when you can that you want. But what could be expected of it in terms of numbers? What could be the equivalent of deportation quotas in terms of national identity? Integration medals and diversity labels seem very symbolic, compared to the proven effectiveness of Afghan charters...

Lacking the ability to offer tangible results, the problem of national identity was therefore doomed to failure. The circular distributed to the prefectures to organize the debate called for asking: "why does the question of national identity generate discomfort among some intellectuals, sociologists, or historians?" However, contrary to this populism, it is now apparent that the discomfort is widespread among the "people", including on the right. This is why the instigators of the debate are now avoiding it: Nicolas Sarkozy has given up closing the Montaigne Institute colloquium on December 4. Even Éric Besson now declines invitations.

Paradoxically, with the rulers failing, it is now these same "intellectuals" who, by their refusal to debate, fuel the debate - not on national identity (who still solicits Max Gallo?), but on the policy of national identity. It is, quite simply, reversing the problem. This paradox is not a contradiction. Today, it is the critics who can legitimately claim the culture of result. No doubt Nicolas Sarkozy had achieved his ends in 2007. However, the call for the abolition of the Ministry of National Identity, published on December 4, sets a goal that can just as easily be achieved. The parties only have to commit to it, and the associations and unions, as well as the citizens, can join this initiative. Ending this ministry, and with its policy of national identity? If you want it, you can. It is not a problem.

Find this article on MEDIAPART