Jérémie Bréaud (Les Républicains), mayor of Bron, a town in the Lyon metropolis, recently supported an event organized by a Turkish community association. Behind the festivities, this event was linked to the “Equality and Justice” Party, an organization close to President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s party. An initiative which has not gone unnoticed, in particular because of the fundraisers organized by this organization at the Strasbourg mosque, known to be supported by the Islamist movement Milli Görüs, and the recurring accusations of indoctrination of young people in a logic militarist.
This episode echoes another controversy that occurred a few months earlier in Épinay-sur-Seine, where mayor Hervé Chevreau inaugurated a statue of Mustafa Kémal Atatürk, the founder of modern Turkey. If this gesture could be perceived as a tribute to a historic secular leader, it also raised questions about the growing influence of Turkish nationalist representations in the French public space, Kemal being identified as the great massacrer of Greeks and Kurds. , and the one who completed the Armenian genocide and invented its negationism.
These initiatives, although distinct, raise a common question: what does the involvement of certain French elected officials in highlighting symbols or actions linked to Turkish nationalism mean?
For several years, the Turkish government, under the aegis of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, has strengthened its influence within the Turkish diaspora in Europe. Through associations, financing or political campaigns, Ankara seeks to maintain a strong link with its nationals and to defend its strategic interests abroad. This soft power is accompanied by a strategy of community mobilization, which sometimes finds unexpected relays among French elected officials, often driven by local electoral considerations.
However, this collaboration raises major issues. In the case of Milli Görüs, critics point to an ideological proximity to political Islam and a communitarian vision in contradiction with the republican principles of secularism and integration. As for the highlighting of figures like Atatürk, it can be seen as a neutral choice, but it also reflects community pressures and more nationalist geopolitical dynamics.
By associating themselves with these initiatives, certain local elected officials expose themselves to criticism of the dilution of republican values in a logic of electoral patronage. These choices, even occasional ones, raise questions about the balance to be found between recognition of multiple identities and respect for the universal principles of the Republic. While France continues to debate its relationship with plural identities, these symbolic gestures remind us of the importance of maintaining great vigilance with regard to the maneuvers of the Turkish State, in full expansionist logic, on French territory.
Paul Nazarian
