There’s been a bit internet pile-on President Macron over the past few days. I dislike these things, on principle. The tweets that fill up my feed seem more designed to let the tweeter enjoy their own self-righteousness or special enlightenment than to express true outrage. It’s all rather unpleasant. I was sad to see the author of one of my favorite books join in.
What are they beating up the French president about? Well, his comment is here:
President Macron expresses doubt that aid will work without institutional reform, favors more aid and direct French involvement in security, praises growth in African nations, calls the continent “a land of opportunity,” and supports aid. Those comments do not seem to be the cause of the outrage.
One issue seems to be that the President misreported fertility rates. Only Niger has a total fertility rate above seven; for most of the continent, the number is around five. Perhaps I am too generous, but this seems like an entirely forgivable mistake.
A second issue is whether high fertility contributes to African poverty. A large literature on demographic dividends implies that yes, it does, at least on the margin. I do not see grounds to criticize the French president on that.
A third issue seems to be that he left out references to the negative impact of the European empires. This blog certainly has an interest in the subject. But Macron has been outspoken in his critiques of France’s imperial past. And in his quote he actually agrees with the idea of a Marshall Plan for Africa; he certainly is not dismissing the idea that Europe owes Africa a debt. I am, however, open to an argument that Françafrique imposes a rhetorical special burden on French presidents. (Does it?)
Which leaves us with his choice of the word “civilizational.” My friend Gabriel Mathy pointed out to me that Macron’s statement is the logical equivalent of calling Africans “uncivilized,” and that, I think most observers will agree, would have been offensive. Language, however, is not algebra: I have no idea of Macron’s odd word choice (to speakers of English or Spanish) has an offensive connotation in French.
At the end of the day, whether there is any basis for outrage hinges on that one word. If it has a racist connotation, like “Oriental,” then Macron deserves connotation. If it does not, then there seems to be nothing here, and I fail to understand the reasons for the pile-on.
And I do wish, sometimes, that the mockery and outrage would stop.
Tough to interpret what he means from an English-language translation, but the mot-clé for me is the phrase "mission civilisatrice," not used here, which goes back to the good old days of AEF and AOF.
But weirdly, the first three examples he cites, "failed states, complex democratic transitions, and extremely difficult demographic transitions," can all be fairly described as effects of colonialism. So is Macron saying "France screwed up the original mission civilisatrice so bad that we need to do it all over again to address the problems that we created 50-75 years ago"?
I wouldn't have used the term civilizational not because it evokes an unequal level of civilization between France and Africa, but because it evokes the previous fraught attempt by France to invest in Africa.
Posted by: JKR | July 13, 2017 at 07:39 AM