Read moreLa Croix: The image of a flaming cocktail thrown at the CRS did not arouse unanimous indignation. How do you explain this?Michel Erman: The French disapprove, that's for sure. They do it with words, but they remain, it is true, resigned in the face of this violence. They are not complicit, but they show a certain indifference to the suffering of others, while there is a man, a police officer in this case, who, simply by doing his job, finds himself in mortal danger. During the yellow vest movement, a more tragic scene took place: a demonstrator on a roundabout died after being hit by the vehicle of a mother who was taking her child to the hospital. One might have expected the movement to be interrupted to make way for contemplation and mourning. However, this did not happen. It seems to me that we have crossed a threshold at this point, because non-condemnation is a form of complacency. What fuels this violence? where does she come from?M. E. : Current social anger is the direct breeding ground for this. This is a very strong feeling of resentment which leads to repulsion and hatred, a hatred of which the President of the Republic is the preferred target. His effigy was also burned, which is a very violent, even cruel, symbolic act. The arsonist of the police group pushes the logic to its conclusion by depersonalizing the police force, making them the henchmen of Macronie. There is therefore a dangerous shift, made possible by a climate of sad passions. How can we explain this climate?M. E. : It goes back well before the COVID-19 episode. In my opinion, it all started with the attacks in New York on September 11, 2001. Then came the subprime economic crisis in 2008 and the attacks in France in 2015. These are events that first aroused fear, then anger, and sometimes even hatred. Let us not forget that "the Contis" in 2008-2009 (Continental employees, editor's note) set fire to their production facility to express their refusal to lose their jobs. We are then faced with an outbreak of violence which takes us out of the world of speech and into a pattern of war. Since then, we've gotten used to it. Not only has anger become a value, which it normally is not, but it has also acquired the right to become a violent passion. Anger and violence are not the same things...Mr. E. : Effectively. Anger (1) is an emotion that has its reasons, good or bad, it is a demand for recognition that claims to be justified. We can therefore imagine getting out of it through a process of dialogue. Violence does not build relationships; it tends to transform adversaries into enemies. It is a form of Manichaeism since it aims to show the confrontation between Good and Evil, the dominant and the dominated. Also read: "Democracy exceeds the legality of the established order" On the political level, verbal violence, which has been increasing for a decade, re-establishes the Right-Left opposition. In this sense, Macronism, which proposes to overcome this divide, indirectly provokes violence. We can clearly see that Emmanuel Macron's opponents have found no other way than verbal violence to combat him. So the responsibility for the violence lies with the President's opponents? Mr. E. : No. This responsibility is difficult to attribute. Initially, there was discontent, legitimate in a democracy, against the law on retirement age. Its adoption by the procedure of 49.3 transformed this feeling into an almost revolutionary fury. The opinion is that the representatives of the people do not represent them; even the Constitutional Council is challenged. The opponents no longer recognize the power in place and want to "turn over" the system, to overturn the table. It is the same process for the mega basins of Sainte Soline. From then on, when a crowd is formed, the effect of personal irresponsibility comes into play and the situation degenerates. Violence is not morally sanctioned and is not carried out by anyone in particular. This is why de-escalation will be difficult to achieve. As for the organized rioters in black blocs, they do not have a plan to overthrow the government but to destroy the political system.

"This post is a summary of information from our information monitoring"