’Belgium is a country that cannot agree on any thing but there they had a national consensus on banning burka’ says Pierre Rousset with a grin while pointing out the growing Islamophobia in Europe.

Pierre Rousset, born in 1946, is an activist of what he calls the French ’May 1968’ generation. He lives in Paris and has been active in international solidarity activities and has extensively travelled in Asia. He is the founding director (1982-1993) and presently a fellow of the International Institute for Research and Education (IIRE, Amsterdam). Involved in the Global Justice Movement, he has been a member of the International Council of the World Social Forum. For the Association Europe Solidaire Sans Frontières (ESSF), he edits in French and English, the website www.europe-solidaire.org

Author of Communisme et nationalisme vietnamien (1978), he has contributed to several books and numerous magazines, writing articles and studies on Asian revolutions, national and social movements, as well as on ecology and the Global Justice Movement. He is part of the board of editors of the International Encyclopaedia of Revolution and Protest (Immanuel Ness ed., Wiley-Blackwell, 2009).

In an interview with Viewpoint, he discusses different aspects of burka debate in France. He opposes the ban but also contests burka. He does not agree with the position of certain feminists who oppose the ban but do not reject burka. ’Yes there are women who wear it of free will. But there are women who join neo-fascist National Front. We fight them back. Margret Thatcher became prime minister of her free will. But we fought her back’, he says. ’We can not embrace Salafis mere because a few women have joined them as we can not ally with fascists in the name of secularism,’ he argues.

Viewpoint: Will the passage of a bill banning the burka will end the debate in France?

It is difficult to be sure. One big question remains unsolved that is, if this ban is constitutional or not. There is a discussion going on the juridical aspects of the law. The legal experts are debating it. Meantime, the State Council has disapproved it. However, State Council’s opinion is not binding. The chief whip in the parliament has said that he would move the Constitutional Council to ascertain the legal aspect. Also, Senate has to approve it which in fact will not be difficult given the governmental majority. But even if the Senate adopts the bill, the constitutionality will come in conflict with existing French Constitution. Ultimately, the government may go for a referendum for an amendment in the Constitution. In that case, the debate is here to stay.

Viewpoint: There is an impression that this ban reflects a growing Islamophobia. Others call it an attempt to distract attention from real social issue. What is your opinion?

The ban has very little to do with republican values, security, human dignity and women rights. It is an attempt to divert attention from social issues. Given the erosion of credibility and support of Sarkozy government, it is an attempt to win back far right and right-wing voters for the next election. Also, it is an attempt to divide the left. This is not an isolated event but part of wider agenda. There is an ongoing campaign to stigmatise Gypsies – some recent migrants from Romania but most of them being French and living in France for centuries. Gypsies are Christians and not Muslims. New repressive laws are proposed, even to revoke the French nationality of people who became “recently” French nationals and who would commit grave crimes – no one knows what “recently” means here! This is a very dangerous dynamic. This kind of measures will pitch one community against the other. And we know that attacks on the rights of minorities prepare attacks on the rights of everybody.

Viewpoint: Analogies of Islamophobia under present economic crisis are being invoked with the rise of Hitler during Great depression of the 1930s and persecution of Jews. Your comments?

The comparison is not entirely wrong though context is different. The present wave of xenophobia is sweeping Europe in the context of globalization. The socio-economic crisis is in all probability going to deepen further. Meantime, social legitimacy of the Western governments has been eroding. They are destroying social safety networks. The people can turn against them very easily. The divide and rule policy is not a new tactic, but it has today a more central role to play than in the recent past. Let me elaborate.

After the Second World War, owing to relationship of forces, bourgeoisie had to concede big concessions. In France, for instance, where the Communist Party emerged as the biggest party that was armed too. This necessitated some historical compromises and these were integrated into the system to keep the system going. As a result of compromises, social security, public health, free education, universal pension and other such reforms were introduced. Now is the time for revenge. The European bourgeoisie wants to roll back the reforms it was obliged to accept after Second World War. This will, however, not usher in stability. This because they are destroying what brought stability in the past. Hence, divide and rule becomes a pivotal tool. Keep the oppressed people divided to ensure stability.

Now on comparison with Jews’ persecution in 1930s, I would say back then it was nationalism. Today xenophobia is driven in ’clash of civilisations’ framework.

Viewpoint: Don’t you think through this ’clash of civilisations’ dynamic, right feeds off right in both West and Muslim world?

Of course, it does. But also it strengthens far right in Europe while it helps religious fundamentalists enhance their influence in migrant communities. They are helping one another. Fundamentalists are very happy with the ban. Similarly, every time a government in Muslim world introduces a reactionary legislation, or when a “crime of honour” is committed in Europe, extreme right in Europe is very happy.

Viewpoint: What should be done?

We have to confront and resist division among oppressed people on religious lines. We are in a race against right wing to build solidarity with minority communities. But we are also in race with religious right in the migrant communities. Unfortunately, we don’t have one enemy. We have two, may be more rivals. On one hand, we have to fight back European xenophobia. On the other hand, we have to confront rise of religious right not merely among Muslims: it is a growing threat even in other migrant communities. The progressives in Europe are not used to fight on two fronts. There are people who approach this issue with either a feminist position or anti-racist position alone. For them, either the religious right or the European xenophobia is the main enemy. This is deadly logic. It is very rare in political life that you have one enemy only. Yes, we have to oppose the ban. But we must also say what we think about burka. Let us oppose both. The meaning of burka is very clear. In my view, it makes women disappear from public sphere. We oppose ban because government will drive women off the public places. This is what fundamentalist currents also say ’go out only when you disappear from public view’. If you oppose ban but don’t oppose burka, you strengthen the divide and rule policy.

Viewpoint: Will you explain this point?

Look! The strongest reaction against burka is coming from Muslim women themselves from inside the community. The strongest clashes have been between Muslim women who oppose and support the burka or hijab. Let us not choose victims. There are victims of xenophobia and there are victims of religious conservatism. Let us side with all victims. We have to overcome single line of argument.

It is important to recognize that we are not only dealing with an issue of individual rights. We are speaking of families – with bearded husbands and children –, of evolutions at work in social milieus and of the strengthening of politico-religious movements. What vision of society and of gender roles will be given to the children? Progressives have also to state their opinion on such matters!

Viewpoint: Opinion polls show big support for ban. Do you think left will suffer in elections for not supporting the ban?

Don’t think so. People are genuinely shocked by the burka, but they are not stupid. They cannot be fooled by this issue for very long! More central will be the issue of security as a whole, with the new repressive laws, etc. Other issues than the burka will be more important to know if xenophobia will become an efficient tool to take precedence over social issues in the coming electoral period.

Farooq Sulehria