Debate on secularism tears Geneva apart

A look at the news - Jonas Follonier

In short, secularism is a principle inherited from the 19th century.^th The idea of a separation between Church and State has, of course, distant origins («il faut rendre à Dieu ce qui est à Dieu et à César ce qui est à César»). The idea of a separation between Church and State has, of course, distant origins ("we must render to God what is God's and to Caesar what is Caesar's"), but let's be clear: secularism as it has manifested itself (timidly, except in France) over the last two centuries has its roots in Enlightenment thinking - just think of Locke or Voltaire and their writings on tolerance and the liberal state.

The Republicans of the 19th^th Secularism is a founding principle of our modern states, forged by radicals in France and Switzerland. But what politician knows more about history today than a few enthusiasts? No one seems to realize just how precious our two-hundred-year-old heritage is.

We see this most clearly in Geneva, one of the few cantons in French-speaking Switzerland to have enshrined secularism in its constitution, but a canton that has not yet finished applying this principle. Since the beginning of the year, the debate has been raging: should we adopt an open secularism or a rigid one? Should civil servants be allowed to wear the Islamic veil, or should they be forbidden to do so? Should the church tax be considered a necessary exception, or should it be abolished? The problem thus posed comes down to whether or not we want to abolish secularism.

Personally, of course, I opt for the latter. The aim of today's article is not to take a position, but rather to describe things correctly. To do this, let's not get too simple. Indeed, it is all too tempting, as many politicians, commentators and ordinary people do, to label the proponents of the first option as Islamo-leftists and the second as Islamophobes. Let's forget our emotions about Islam for a moment, and consider that this debate pits multiculturalists against republicans.

The situation on the Geneva left is as follows: the PS is divided, the Greens are divided, the left of the left is divided. It has to be said that the argument of the republican state is not really invoked among those on the left who demand a «strict» secularism; they prefer to emphasize the freedom and equality of women in relation to men. But aren't freedom and equality also republican principles? So let's join together, apolitical PLR, UDC, PDC, PS and Greens in favor of banning religious symbols within the State, instead of creating thirty-six different positions.

The political scene would benefit greatly from being redefined. Not necessarily in terms of parties, but in terms of ideas. Left and right are terms that no longer suffice. Depending on the issue, why not imagine a Republican front and a multiculturalist front? For other issues, why not imagine a national and a transnational grouping? And, of course, a liberal camp versus an interventionist camp? The discussions would have the merit of being clearly posed, and perhaps politics could then get to the heart of the matter.

Write to the author: jonas.follonier@leregardlibre.com