Paris, Wednesday, January 29, 2020
CONTRIBUTION (38) TO THE NATIONAL
DEBATE WANTED BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE REPUBLIC IN 2020.
COMPENSATION (37) AND THE INVARIANTS OF
THE GORDIAN KNOT OF THE STATE.
(Continuation of reflection n ° 35 of
November 19, 2019 and previous ones. Cf.: madic50.blogspot.com)
Reflection on the invariants of state
public policy.
1. Preamble
No one can say today what is the state
policy of public order (the Powers (Executive, Legislative) and the
Judicial Authority), or even if there is one that is publicly
definable.
On the other hand, whatever the detours
of this policy, there are constitutional and factual invariants which
ultimately place or will place everyone before their responsibilities
and will lead the policies, state and civil, in progress to
predictable and determining effects.
It is to the establishment of these
invariants that this reflection is devoted.
2) - The aim
The accumulation of so-called “police
violence” cases continues with a certain disqualification of the
police.
For the moment, it is essentially the
police who are designated for public retribution and for judicial
qualifications.
But the insistence of active protesting
forces to use thugs, such as Adama Traoré, to obtain the conviction
of several gendarmes, indicates that the time will come.
Contrary to the message hammered here
and there, it is not the action of a few police officers that is
questioned.
As such, it is characteristic that it
is the public, organized, continuous support for
delinquents,criminals, among the most abject that is, which is the
engine of this questioning of the police.
It is the legitimacy of police action
that is at stake. This disqualification of the police implies that of
the state in its claim to the exclusivity of the definition and the
exercise of public order.
3) - The priority fact
Certainly, there are always all kinds
of people who are against public order and its representatives.
a- However, this disqualification of
the police is primarily due neither to their alleged faults nor to
their very numerous protesters.
b- It does not primarily come from the
lack of control of the black sheep of the police or from the
extremism of the Black Bloc.
Certainly, there is all that and the
age of the captain in addition.
However, if the State no longer manages
to indisputably have the capacity to define public order and the
legality of the actions which preserve it, it is primarily because of
its own logics and not intrusions from external logics.
Indeed, it is visible that the action
of the State becomes the constitution of a Gordian knot and each of
its solutions adds a knot to the already insoluble problem.
"Police violence" exists, but
the argument of plucked hands and sunken eyes does not aim to
denounce such a police officer, such a doctrine of policing, such a
political composition of the police.
The argument of the LBDs, and other
blown eyes or rattles-feet, is the vector of a denunciation of the
merits of the action of public order and ultimately of the State.
It is evident that the state is on the
defensive and accepts, slowly but surely, the thesis of police crime
and the illegitimacy of the preeminence of the state in matters of
public order. The state is incapable of being in this place legally
and it is illegitimate that it is there.
This deadlocked confinement comes
primarily from the doctrines that direct the action of the State to
maintain public order in its various questions.
If the LBD do so much damage to the
reputation of the police, it is first of all that their shooting
highlights the obsolescence of the system of legal control of the
"abusive public consequences" of "legitimate
violence".
This obsolescence disturbs the
procedures for legitimization, definition, exercise, this legal and
ultimately judicial control of public order.
4) - Capillarity
This obsolescence leads the official
procedure itself to serve as a launching pad for rallies within it of
adversaries of public order and its representatives.
The State only functions by becoming
the ally, even the partner, of the protesting forces which challenge
it on the definition of public order and the implementation of its
systems.
These forces are so interwoven in the
procedures, by the current procedure, that they become parts of the
legal definition of public order.
The frank scoundrels who perish loudly
to demand the conviction of police and gendarmes aim at sharing the
definition and the exercise of public order; including in the
ideological order.
What is actually being done:
1- Subject to information error; Théo
Luhaka’s family received 700,000 euros from the state to create a
local militia of ethno-religious composition.
It justifies 350,000 euros. The State
is unable, unless there is a secret development, to hold it
accountable.
One of the brothers extended this
system to Paris. Nobody informs the public of the legal consequences.
2- On the other hand, police officers
who arrested him legally are accused of rape.
However, they only used force to compel
the so-called "Theo" to respect the exclusivity of the
police authority in matters of public order.
What is constitutionally called
national unity and the continuity of the state.
The latter intervened in their action
precisely in respect of the Caïdat conferred on him by the State.
5) - The confusion
If rascals can thus lead a militant and
mass political fight against the police, it is because they can mix
their factitious militancy with the protests of honest people against
abuse of power.
They owe this possibility to the legal
proceedings themselves:
a- This organizes the confusion of the
criminal and the indemnity.
b- This confusion ensured the omnipotence of state apparatus when it could guarantee the impunity of its servants.
b- This confusion ensured the omnipotence of state apparatus when it could guarantee the impunity of its servants.
c- Today, this impunity is no longer
possible and political forces are capable of exploiting this
confusion for the best of their interests.
It is obvious that the representatives
of the public authorities are behind the thugs and their dependents.
The latter behave in political vanguard and creator of legal
standards.
The State finds itself losing on all
sides:
a- He lets the separatists penetrate
and dominate the procedures.
b- He opposes honest people who seek
compensation by continuing the old logic of omerta for the benefit of
agents of the State.
c- It weakens, or even destroys, its
own forces.
6) - The invariants
a- We can be against the State, public
order, national unity, civil peace, etc.
b- It is however impossible to pretend
to continue the constitutional principles of France by maintaining
this obsolete confusion of the criminal and the indemnity and by
failing to refound the indemnity.
c- These failures are a fast track to
chaos. It is used by all the factious and seditious.
The distinction between the criminal
and the indemnity, their placement under the exclusive Directorate of
Justice, the preparation of a consequent and inexpensive
compensation, for the public treasury or for corporate treasuries,
are now essential to the public policy, the indivisibility of the
State, its authority.
The Head of State can organize the
experiment.
The French who claim the adventure, or
accept it, will refuse this initiative.
Those who hold Democracy for the unique
form of the state and society will support it.
Marc SALOMONE
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire