RIOTS IN FRANCE: A SYSTEMIC PERSPECTIVE

For more than a week, massive riots have shaken many French cities. The widespread violence has left a mark on the French nation that is all too used to protests and demonstrations, though seldom with this intensity. The trigger event was the murder of a teenager who was shot by a police officer in Paris. Long-lasting dissatisfaction with racially motivated ill-behaviour of the police then led to protests that became increasingly violent. Accordingly, predominantly foreigners participate in the riots, causing racist groups and movements across Europe to raise their voices once again against immigration. Especially in Germany and Great Britain, where a heightened influx of foreigners and rapidly changing ethnic demographics have been observable, racist debates are flaming up. Although independent from the situation in France, dissatisfaction with the presence of foreigners is increasing. Thus, the riots in France must rather be treated as a representative phenomenon of the wider topic of immigration in Europe and Central Asia. In typical Essydo Magazine fashion, this event is not going to be discussed in its contemporary context. The main reason is that those analyses, focusing on what is happening over this limited time span, do not provide us with the necessary insights to resolve the issue sustainably. In contrast to viewing the micro-events that are referred to, in order to fill the journalistic agenda, a systemic approach is used to understand the depths of the riots. From there, more useful policy responses can be formed.

Background Dynamics

In 2015, more than 900 000 refugees reached Europe from war and conflict-torn regions in the Middle East and Africa – officially. But Europe, and especially France, has a far-reaching history of immigration from these areas. During and after colonising much of West Africa, citizens from those newly found nations moved or were moved, to France in the 19th and 20th centuries. Similarly, a considerable number of citizens from the former colonies of Great Britain moved to the European island after the colonisation. In Great Britain, 18% of the population has a non-Euro-white background, similar to Germany’s approximately 15%. In France, however, the collection and use of data on ethnicity are constitutionally limited, which is why the available numbers (around 10%) only indicate the number of immigrants. So, deported citizens from colonised nations are not necessarily included in the statistic. Due to the refugee crisis and the inclusion of refugees in European societies, the numbers are growing.

Now, in popular discourse, the connection between immigration and societal unrest is often treated as a given. When asking how the causal bridge would allow us to make such assumptions, seldom do we get satisfactory answers. This is also the reason why racist groupings tend to equate immigration with criminality and unrest. Then the connection between the respective nations and criminality is unfortunately all too close, fuelling hatred against those nations. More determining than the nation where immigrants come from, the reasons for them seeking to relocate are more important. While work-related relocation has never been associated with ill social behaviour or even unrest, such as the example of Turkish and Polish workers in Europe or German farmers in the USA, relocation that has been caused by violence or hardship in the home nation often leads to friction in the society of the host nation. Caused is this by two factors. First, the hardships experienced in the home nation often cause psychological damage that can overwhelm people, especially paired with the uncertainties connected to being in a foreign country. Second, and more importantly, people leaving their home nation from a position of weakness show dangerous mental traits that lead to degenerate behaviour in the host nation. Somebody who has little financial means at home where war or famine is raging, is automatically among the first to be hit by this situation, making his position in the hierarchy of survival all too clear. The same holds true for the uneducated or those who are the direct target of violence. Such a weak position is amplified by the often burdensome journey to the new nation.

Weakness And Strength

As expected, the host nation often provides a much better environment in both economic and social terms. With the inclusive immigration policies of the last decades in Europe, foreigners could enter the continent more easily than in all the decades before, while also being financially supported to some degree. Most prominently debated are the welfare programmes in Germany, grating refugees free shelter and financial support or in Türkiye where refugees even received unhindered access to universities and citizenship. Amidst such benefits and the more stable socio-economic situation of those nations, foreigners who initially began their journey from a position of weakness are moved into a position of strength. Not only were their physical and financial concerns eliminated within a short time, but they received much help from the host nations. The psychological effect of such a rapid change in social status is quite dangerous. While people can adapt to shorter distances of socio-economic adaptation, the stark contrast of change that people experience within a short period can lead to confusion and a renewed development phase. In other words, people can easily be overwhelmed when they move from a position of drastic weakness within society to a position on eye level with the majority of an already more developed nation. Being overwhelmed might lead to the exploitation of those freely granted benefits but also to distorted expectations for the long term. But also erratic behaviour can be the consequence of being unable to adapt to the newly gained socio-economic standard in the host nation. This is, again, compatible with the comparison to transnational movement in the light of labour-motivated relocation. As workers already relocate with set expectations, a fixed socio-economic frame and most importantly from a position of strength to another nation, there is little risk of being overwhelmed and, thus, also of erratic social behaviour.

It clearly follows that the causes of this socioeconomic weakness of people must be addressed. First, it will enable more people to relocate from a position of strength rather than from a position of desperation. Second, it would reduce transnational movement naturally since fewer people would have strong motives to leave their homes behind and move to another nation. The incentives to move elsewhere need to be disproportionately high, whereas war, famine, persecution and other atrocities are factors that actively push people to move to secure their survival. Of course, foreign nations cannot interfere with the internal affairs of other nations to restore proper state functioning, but the intervention was the sole reason for the lengthy decline of all the nations where refugees in Europe come from.

The Anchor Of Stability: The Ottomans

Whereas a couple of centuries ago, nations of the Middle East and North Africa were the main drivers of innovation, trade and literature, today those nations feed the global statistics in almost all categories related to poverty and violence. Especially with the collapse of the Ottoman Empire, those nations were exposed to the last attempts of European colonialism. After more than 400 years of stability, prosperity and peace, those nations were all of a sudden targeted by Euro-white nations that wanted to expand their influence politically and extract valuable resources from there. What was already a recipe for long term societal decline was further amplified by the lacking nation state-culture. Under the Ottoman administration, those nations were functional but did not develop their own state culture. Formerly organised in tribes and lacking awareness of pan-Arabism, the classical nation state is not a viable system for those nations which were much better off under the lead of the Ottomans. The same holds true for sub-Saharan nations that did not have nation state structures until the mid-20th century. Therefore, those nations not only needed to battle foreign exploitative influences but also embarked on a wholly new search for identity.

As it is with every newborn organism, nations, too, need to live through turbulent phases in their early days. In the civilisational context, most of those nations are not mature enough to establish stable and lasting structures for long-term success. And amidst these crucial phases of development, wars and other catastrophes erupted. Accordingly, those people who left their nation not only left it in a weak position but also in a phase of ambiguous national identity that also affects the people of this day and age. If the national identity would have been stronger in those nations, fewer people would be inclined to leave their nation and would also behave differently in their host nation, being aware that their behaviour is somewhat representative of the nation whose reputation they would want to protect. Further, national identity is inherently connected to a fixed set of norms and values. A matured national identity means those norms and values transcend national boundaries and serve as psychological anchors. Even in stressful situations, people are less inclined to disrespect the boundaries set by those norms and values.

So, we are confronted with a multi-layered problem where many different factors interplay and produce a large number of mentally unstable refugees. It is not simply the drive to “live better” somewhere else and “take everything away” from the host nation, as racists argue. It is the combination of a weak position in the home nation that was caused by Euro-white nations in the first place, a lacking national identity that leaves people without orientation and the neglected policies of host nations in this regard. Surely, this is not to normalise the reoccurring riots in France, but they provide useful insights into what the causes are. It is safe to say, however, that the problems that host nations to foreigners from the Middle East and North Africa began 100 years ago when the Ottoman Empire collapsed. And as long as these nations are not developing socio-economically, the immigration of unstable people will persist. This can be applied to any other nation as well and is not confined to those regions. Any nation that fulfils the aspects enlisted above, will produce such unstable refugees.

Solutions

Since the systemic view is helping to understand the cause, finding solutions to the problem becomes very easy. The main point is that nations that experience problems with desperate foreigners need to cease all exploitative acts abroad. Especially France is known for exploiting African nations for radioactive material to uphold its energy infrastructure. But also bribes by corporations need to be persecuted by the host nation. The home nations of those foreigners can be aided financially to restore order but need to be generally left on their own. If there is a colonial history, reparations must be paid. By ensuring that the nations that experience problems with foreigners are internationally neutral, they also build a basis to finance the repatriation of foreigners. However, a nation cannot be involved in the activities of another nation and then send refugees from this nation back.