A word. seven letters. And so many nuances, misunderstandings, things left unsaid. On May 20, during the transfer of power between Jean-Michel Blanquer and Pap Ndiaye, the brand new Minister of National Education described himself as being “perhaps a symbol, that of meritocracy, but perhaps also that of diversity”.
Since then, the historian has been portrayed, by some of the press and politicians, as the embodiment of a career of dazzling success, that of the “first black man” appointed to such an eminent ministry.
However, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem, one of her predecessors (2014-2017), was also presented as such for having been the first woman – and “immigrant background” – to enter Rue de Grenelle. A few years earlier, Rachida Dati had also been labeled “symbol of diversity” when she became Keeper of the Seals (2007-2009). At the same time, Rama Yade, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Human Rights (2007 to 2009), was decked out in the same expression after his appointment to the Quai d’Orsay.
All these politicians, from the right and from the left, have a common denominator, that of having links with Africa: Pap Ndiaye’s father is Senegalese, Rama Yade was born in Dakar, Rachida Dati is of Moroccan origin, Najat Vallaud-Belkacem was born in Morocco. Personalities with such different backgrounds and trajectories; but all elevated to the rank of emblem of the Republic.
“I do not remember having heard that for Jean-Vincent Placed [il est d’origine sud-coréenne] ou Matthias Fekl [il est Franco-Allemand]my former government colleagues”note Mme Vallaud-Belkacem. “I never considered myself a symbol. I have the baccalaureate like the vast majority of French people”ton Mme Data. “The insistence around this word is a way of reminding you that you will be alone in this position and that the door will be closed behind you”Judge M.me Yade.
Charges of detractors
You have to spend time discussing with these three former ministers to understand how the term “symbol” can be meaningless or even nonsense; that by dint of hearing it, it ended up stigmatizing and containing so many contradictions, fantasies, weariness.
“It’s too ambiguous a word. It targets origins, skin color, gender, religion, class, background?asks Najat Vallaud-Belkacem. This word is above all reductive because it makes it possible to erase inequalities and to say that everything is fine, while meritocracy does not really work. »
You have 76.26% of this article left to read. The following is for subscribers only.