Referring to the case of the imprisoned writer Boualem Sansal in the JDDMichel Onfray asks a somewhat dizzying question: “The diet [algérien] speaks of “intelligence with the enemy.” Who is the enemy? France ?”. Meanwhile, for several days, many voices have been relaying the Algerian military dictatorship on this side of the Mediterranean Sea…
Boualem Sansal, a writer fighting against Islamism, was thrown into a ditch by the Algerian authorities, in a completely arbitrary manner, with the aim of settling the power's scores with the French state. On this occasion, we saw a certain number of elected officials and Franco-Algerian opinion relays act as the little telegraph operators of Algiers by making a very violent speech against fundamental freedoms and France.
Dual nationals relay Algerian propaganda based on hatred of France
Karim Zeribi is one of them. Former EELV elected official, convicted of having embezzled public funds, the man founded the world council of the Algerian diaspora. Self-proclaimed voice of Algerians in France, the businessman believes that Boualem Sansal “ fuels a business which is that of the extreme right and some of the reactionary pseudo-intellectuals ». « Today we need people of peace, positive people, people who want to respect each other to unite and undermine these Boualem Sansal pseudo-Islamophobic writers who spread hatred. » It's metaphorically shooting an imprisoned man in the back. And it's called left-wing… Another great conscience claiming to be progressive, Nedjib Sidi Moussa is an academic whose only recognized feat of arms consists of having investigated the writer's trial in a program on France 5 which caused a scandal. The man explains the success of Boualem Sansal by arguing that he “ responds to a demand, shaped by the cultural industry and the ambient ideology, which aims to reinforce a colonialist and supremacist view of Algeria and Algerians “. For this political scientist, MM. Daoud and Sansal “ were strategically promoted to wage the French culture wars “. It is to disseminate under the cover of falsely scientific analysis the elements of language of a foreign country whose aim is to radicalize Algerian immigrants and dual nationals. Kamel Daoud, as threatened in his country of origin as Boualem Sansal, says so in The Point : « For them, I am not a real Algerian because I do not meet their criterion: hatred of France ».
Now if being a good Algerian means hating France, how can you be binational without being a potential traitor? Here or there. These people illustrate the problem that binationality can pose in the event of tension between two countries which do not have the same values, principles or ideals; and in which one uses the hatred of the other to construct its national identity.
How can we serve two masters who have nothing in common and are in conflict?
Let's start with the big gap in terms of principles. It is complicated to belong to two mental spheres which exclude each other. If we adhere to certain political principles, it is difficult to validate their opposites. So, France is a democracy, Algeria is not. France is secular, Algeria is not. France operates on the principle of equality before the law, Algeria does not. France defends public freedoms, Algeria tramples them. France defends freedom of expression, Algeria is imprisoned for the offense of opinion.
In this unleashing of tensions, the most sincere people suffer a conflict of loyalty, they can be torn between affiliations whose contradictions have been exacerbated. As for the least reliable and the most hateful, they become agents of the country in conflict and take aim at France. Obviously Mr. Zeribi is above all an Algerian. And he has every right to do so. He has chosen between his two affiliations: he supports Algeria and spits on France. It would be good if he followed through on this choice.
Worse still, if today he is simply a man convicted of embezzlement, he was elected (EELV). Would this man be capable of defending the general interest and the interests of France if he had to decide between his two affiliations? We know the answer when we see him relying on humanism and justice to justify the political violence in Algiers and the arbitrary arrest of an artist. And again, the situation is simply tense. But what would happen in the event of war? However, our future is not moving towards stability and peace in view of international tensions and the weight of the Islamists in the Maghreb, in Africa and at home. Especially since, building mosques and barracks with every effort, Algeria appears to be preparing for war for many observers; As for reconciliation with the Islamists, it has been ratified for a long time. However, hatred of France, which partly constitutes Algerian identity, is evident in the diaspora and makes dual nationality impossible to assume, particularly among the youngest.
The choice of a nationality experienced as an emotional tear
A nationality certainly has an emotional dimension, but it is before access to the exercise of political rights, a way of registering and acting in the public domain through citizenship. It is complicated to subscribe to both a democratic system and an authoritarian system; to a system which advocates the emancipation of individuals and to a system which operates on submission and the stick; to a system which advocates equality and to a system which refuses it in the name of sex, religion… A nationality is political. It is linked to the acquisition of rights, which are justified and exist because they are based on a particular vision of man and the world, even when it is based on universalism. It is adherence to the founding principles of the social contract which legitimizes the possession of a part of national sovereignty, a part which allows the citizen to influence the choices of orientation of a country and to determine its future. .
It is entirely possible to have only one nationality and be the bearer of a dual culture. You can choose to be a democrat and place your citizenship in the French ideal without giving up listening to oriental music, practicing your dialect, loving your parents and often going to your country of origin, even to him maintain a special attachment.
Read next, Dominique Labarrière: Stora jurisprudence
But it is clear that the different countries that make up our world are in a dynamic of confrontation and not convergence. A Mr. Zeribi clearly shows that in the event of a confrontation with Algeria, he would be the relay of a power opposed to France. It already acts as such. To the point that with humor many Internet users proposed that Algeria give us back Boualem Sansal and take back Karim Zeribi. However, you will tell me, a Kamel Daoud or a Boualem Sansal, who also have dual nationality, carry our values much higher than many of our current representatives… But it is true that they made a clear choice in terms of attachment to certain political principles: they fight bearded men and corrupt generals and adhere to the ideals of the Enlightenment, in this they are more French in spirit and heart than those who believe that a nation can only be ethnic and that it can only be French, is being White.
Choice without guilt
The question of dual nationality is therefore complex because, even if it is linked to the exercise of political rights, it speaks of belonging and raises the question of identity. Making a choice can be experienced as a personal betrayal of part of one's identity, an abandonment. However, this metaphor which says that one cannot choose between one's mother and one's father, which many dual nationals use, is false. The real question is rather: “with which partner will you build your future?” », if we want to extend the metaphor. Because we don't belong to our parents. Growing up means starting your own family. Leaving your parents' home is not a betrayal. Choosing whether you want to live in a democracy or under the rule of a dictatorship is what choosing a nationality involves. Put like this, making this type of choice is no longer guilt-inducing, because we do it precisely to avoid passing on to our children an exile that is not theirs and making them the heirs of a conflict of loyalty, instead to transmit to them a peaceful dual culture.
However, for most dual nationals, the question does not arise that way. It is of the emotional register. This is a question linked to the emotional and there is a deep and real feeling of personal questioning when the debate on these questions arises. People really feel rejected and react violently. You have to know how to hear this, especially since it is often the most loyal people who are the most shocked. This does not prevent the question from being raised and, above all, from being likely to arise more and more. We would collectively benefit from a real debate on this theme because the attitude of Mr. Zeribi perfectly illustrates the impossibility of dual allegiance when tension is high and the call to choose a side becomes urgent. In this context, we must also point out the responsibility of France which allows the agents of foreign regimes to act without ever investigating their financing and their networks. However, many rumors accuse the World Council of the Algerian Diaspora of being a fake nose for the Algerian government. Its supposed role in France: to recruit Algerians from the diaspora to turn them into a weapon of political warfare and a propaganda machine. It is a potential tool of destabilization. Karim Zeribi is in any case open to these suspicions and his attitude gives them a certain substance.
This is why the debate on dual nationality is full of traps, hypocrisy and complexity because it questions the nature of our link to the collective, to the nation, to the exercise of civic responsibilities, to the fact that in any choice first of all lies a renunciation. He also tells us about giving up a dream, that of a world that would move towards democracy, the reconciliation of peoples, cultural exchange. This dream that the victors of the Second World War held is dead. The opposite is happening. But tension sometimes imposes choices that we would have liked to escape.
