The circumstantial argument
Only fools don’t change their minds. While the Nupes parliamentarians had until now refused to play in the National Assembly football team which includes several National Rally (RN) elected officials, now they have agreed to participate in a gala match , Wednesday September 27, despite the presence in the workforce of RN deputy Alexandre Sabatou. “There must be six or seven of us from La France insoumise, only one from the RN. Rather, it is they who are marginalized,” justified Eric Coquerel.
The republican argument
Rebellious France has finally come to its senses. And we must congratulate ourselves on this, because this is a fully republican decision, since it is imbued with fraternity. Often largely forgotten in the triptych “Liberty, equality, fraternity”, the latter is nevertheless a constituent element of the democratic debate: if the other can be a political adversary that we combat with ideas, he nonetheless remains a fellow citizen. With which we can play football perfectly, without denying ourselves.
The electoral argument
To combat far-right ideas in public debate, moral or symbolic postures have long demonstrated their ineffectiveness. To ostracize elected representatives of the Republic (and, what is more, to refuse to play with them during a sporting confrontation) is to take the risk of returning RN deputies to the status of victim, which they like. And therefore to fuel the resentment of their voters a little more. In short, shooting yourself in the foot.
The circumstantial counterargument
It goes without saying that the justification put forward by Eric Coquerel is not “very satisfactory”, as he himself admitted. Until now, Nupes had brandished an argument of principle, which at least had the merit of clarity and which could be summarized as follows: playing football with RN deputies is participating in the trivialization of extreme right in France. It is also for the same reason that the majority of “rebellious” deputies refuse to shake hands with their RN counterparts. Difficult in these conditions to pass with a football.
The Republican counterargument
Should we remember it? The RN is not a party like the others. Not only are its historical origins and ideological roots clearly xenophobic and anti-Semitic, but, above all, the backbone of its program is not republican. National preference, in short differentiating the rights and duties of each person according to their nationality, is not in accordance with our Constitution. How then can we not mark our opposition, including through symbols? And therefore, at the very least, refuse to play football with your elected officials.
The electoral counterargument
The turnaround of La France insoumise is the sad illustration that no barrier against the extreme right resists for long. However, this one was, a priori, easy to maintain: if it absolutely wants to play football, Nupes only has to organize a tournament between its different components. Finally, we should not be surprised that the RN vote is today completely uninhibited, since its elected representatives can be carried in triumph when they score a goal.