Difficult to escape the communication plan and the media hype surrounding the release of the book of the former Minister of Culture Roselyne Bachelot. The exercise is all the more difficult as the latter has once again become the darling of editorial writers. Let’s face it: the title made you want to. But, not only does he not keep his promises, but he infuriates.
An above-ground minister
I hate to speak in the first person in this column. Just as I hate the above-ground expression when talking about political personnel. I’m going to go against my nature, because I can’t explain to the reader why I hated Roselyne Bachelot’s book, without providing some information. First of all, it’s not a secret, I worked at HADOPI. Suffice to say that I saw all that was most detestable in the French ecosystem of culture: clientelism, privileges, predations, contempt for the public, wasted public money. Keep these things in mind to understand the rest of these lines.
I also hate the expression “above ground”, widely used under the 15th legislature, to designate the deputies of the presidential majority. I am in a good position to know that we have not only had enlightenment in the National Assembly between 2017 and 2022. But I have also rubbed shoulders with deputies who had a very fair vision of things, who even made me change their minds on certain subjects. Yes, they were amateurs, yes, they were novices in politics, but no, they were much less disconnected than certain political dinosaurs who continue to rage in public debate or certain “colleagues” who imagine that they need a visa and a diplomatic bag to cross the Paris ring road.
Why call Roselyne Bachelot above ground in her book? She explains her pain, at the time of the COVID epidemic, to see artists, especially lyrical artists, losing contracts and fees and having to convert into fast-food deliverers to pay their bills. If I can understand that when you have given your whole life for your art, finding yourself temporarily on the floor is painful, I find it hard to cry. I find it all the more difficult to cry because in my department, Seine-Saint-Denis, the prefectural authorities feared food riots. In France, in 2020. I still can’t forget this episode.
The book even borders on indecency at times. The former Minister of Culture aligns the sums that her ministry has disbursed for this or that project. This money is not counted in millions, but in billions. One would think that after ten years of finance bills, I would be vaccinated by the figures. But, I suffer from a form of schizophrenia, because every day, for six months, people talk to me about inflation, rising bills, falling purchasing power and every day I receive emails from my donors, who explain to me that they can no longer support the Arcadia Project because they no longer make ends meet.
Digital, the big bad
If the book talks a lot about theatre, opera, ballet, a little about cinema and museums, there is a sector, although it comes under the Ministry of Culture, which is completely ignored by the former minister: video games. . There is not a single line devoted to an area where France can proudly trumpet croaking, which is a cultural pastime accessible to the greatest number and which is acclaimed by the majority of the population. As for the authors, we are entitled to a quick mention to talk about the Racine report.
No mention for translators, who are an essential cog in the editing process, nor proofreaders. The comic book is also forgotten, while it has the same characteristics as the video game. As for journalists and the media, let’s say that they talk about us, especially to say that we are evil. “Evil journalists — a redundancy,” she writes precisely. When you see the happy faces, the flirtatious smiles and the flattery that is dispensed with regard to Roselyne Bachelot, it is obvious that the journalists have not read the book. As for being benevolent, in reality, that is not the job of a journalist.
And precisely, what does the former Minister of Culture think of digital? Watch out, it’s going to rock. Social networks ? A machine to stupefy individuals. GAFAM and Netflix? Predators who only want the death of creators and think only of despoiling the French State of its cultural treasures. Private copy remuneration? A great breakthrough for artists and denying it on refurbished equipment is nonsense, because it amounts to stealing from artists. Yes, the parallel with the theft in a Monoprix store is well written as it is in the book. As for the Pirate Party, they are just puppets who have understood nothing about culture – in reference to their election to the German Parliament.
The most delirious passage is probably the meeting with the directors of Free, MyCanal and Molotov TV. At the start of the war in Ukraine, the minister asked them to suspend the broadcasting of Russia Today, which became RT France, as well as Sputnik. Like any vaguely intelligent director, they brandish the injunction of ARCOM, the only entity empowered to tell them what to do.
Legally, they are absolutely right. This is a debate that very often arises on Twitter or among hosts: you can’t suspend content arbitrarily. A decision is needed. Roselyne Bachelot does not care and accuses them of mediocrity and reluctance, forgetting that if the broadcasters had voluntarily suspended the Russian channels, without decision, they would expose themselves to legal proceedings.
We can put digital on trial in cultural matters and in France, we never hesitate to do so. But let it be fair. How many, thanks to digital technology, have had access to literary works, graphic works, cinematographic works? How many of us consult one of the most beautiful works on the Web, namely Wikipedia, on a daily basis? How many discovered that classic works fell into the public domain and were now accessible with a few mouse clicks?
The Old World must give way
The book is sold as a pamphlet, not only to the world of culture, but also to the political world. In order to fully understand who Roselyne Bachelot is, I invite the reader to consult her biography on Wikipedia. And for those who are lazy – we forgive you – we can sum up by saying that she was born into a family where politics was part of everyday life. It’s easier to get into politics—even if you’re a woman—when dad was friends with the general. We respect his political career. Therefore, why spit as she does on the deputies of the 15th legislature?
Described as lazy, arrogant, not to say useless, one comes to doubt that she is talking about parliamentarians who were on the same political side as her. What if it had been adversaries. She talks about these old mandates and explains that at the time, the deputies did not count their hours and their commitment. Let’s put the church back in the middle of the village (and if you read the book, you’ll understand why I specifically use this expression): in his time, deputies (and senators) accumulated mandates, and allowances without any limit. The parliamentary reserve was not supervised and happily made it possible to buy the votes in the elections.
In his time, the representative allowance for mandate expenses made it possible to double parliamentary allowances and even to buy real estate. In his time, we made work, sometimes fictitiously, wife, children and mistress, at the Parliament or at the town hall, when it was not both. In his time, our deputies point fr did not exist and it was necessary to read the minutes of the meeting to have a vague idea of who was present in the meeting. In his time, the accumulation of mandates allowed any elected official to give a place in a crèche, in HLM, a job at the town hall in exchange for votes. In his time, former parliamentarians retained benefits, including financial ones, after their mandate. I did not write 10% of the drifts that I could see or hear in the previous lines. I’m not nostalgic for that time.
The deputies of the XV, I have often written, served as a crash test. They didn’t do everything right. On the reform of the mandate and the institutions, we still have a long way to go, we are starting from a very long way. And when you become a minister, in the midst of an epidemic, you can exercise a modicum of restraint. Except when your name is Roselyne Bachelot obviously. The reader may not know it, but the ministers receive the questions in advance during the session of questions to the Government. For her first QAG session, Roselyne Bachelot is very nervous about not having one and regrets that all the questions from the deputies relate to the management of the epidemic. So sorry, but we were really in the middle of it at the time of Jean Castex’s government.
Don’t look for gossip or good arrows in this book, honestly there is very little and most of it has been exposed in the press. As for the style, we will say that I am biased and that I lack neutrality. I was not subjugated. I would even say disappointed. I expected a character who lived through the Fifth Republic to have more modesty and loftiness. In reality, she is the caricature of the people she describes. It’s a big disappointment. As for the functioning of the Ministry of Culture, forget it. We don’t understand anything, we don’t know who does what, we don’t even know what’s in the wallet.
We hope that this book will sound like a well-deserved retirement.