Ever since the attack
by Muslim extremist on the French magazine Charlie Hebdo, there has been a lot
of attention on France and on the questions of terrorism, immigration, and
religious freedom within France. Among other things, the debate over wearing
veils and displaying other religious symbols in particular has resurfaced after
some professors singled out women for wearing hijabs (the Muslim veil). Political
parties and leaders in France have been eager to make claims about what must be
done and how the situation can be improved. For example, French President François
Hollande “called for a ‘secular teaching of religion.’” He also said that
France’s secular policy (called laïcité) “does not mean forgetting religion, or
indeed being in conflict with religion.” President Hollande’s positions
represent the opinions of himself and his party, the Socialist Party and its
coalition which currently govern France.
Meanwhile, the Union
for a Popular Movement, the main party of the opposing coalition (a
center-right party), has made clear a different set of priorities and responses
to the current situation and developments in France. They have called for
stricter measures on religious symbols in public places and have also advocated
banning veils in universities. Bans on veils are already in place in public
primary and secondary schools.
The Union for a Popular
Movement (UMP) has supported previous bans on the hijab as a move aimed at
promoting gender equality and to defend French culture, while the Socialist
Party (PS) has argued that it such a ban is an attack against freedom of
expression and religious tolerance. They have also argued that it sends a
negative message to the many law abiding Muslims in the nation.
Different parties have
framed the issue in different ways, and they have both appealed to general
notions of right and wrong to defend their arguments. The UMP has promoted
integration policies and secular policies largely with the aim of protecting
France, the French, and French culture while the PS has said that it is wrong
to limit religious expression and that in particular, Muslims are marginalized
by these types of actions. But why do parties choose to frame the same issue so
differently? Instead of having a logical debate as to what should be done from
a practical standpoint, parties often choose to frame all the issues in a way
that allows them to appeal to moral imperatives, or the “right” thing to do.
Two political scientists, Hinich and Munger, help us to understand why they do
this. According to them, ideology is a central feature of political strategy because
it motivates the people. Providing reasons as to the practical benefits of one
policy over another may motivate a few people, but it is far more motivating if
you can convince people that they are locked in a great struggle of good vs.
evil and that the opposing outcome or policy option is simply unacceptable. Furthermore,
choosing a firm ideology creates stable positions by which voters can judge if
politicians are honest. This is because when a politician commits to an ideology,
it is relatively easy to predict what they will do if they are elected and it
is easy to hold them accountable to their ideology, thus it gives voters more
of a reason to trust a politician and vote for them if they are able to show
consistency in action and in ideology.
These concepts enlighten our understanding of the
actions of the UMP and the PS in France because what we observe them doing is
reinforcing and staying in line with their previously created ideologies. The
UMP and the PS both have track records on this issue and on the wider issues of
how to deal with immigration and integration, and they continue to hold on to
their ideologies in order to maintain voter trust. They also use the ideas of
right and wrong to support their views with the PS arguing that what is right
is to maintain French culture and to support gender equality and the UMP
arguing that the right thing to do is to support freedom of expression and religion,
and also stating that any restraints put on the Muslim community are attacks on
the Muslims that make them feel like second-class citizens. These ways to frame
the arguments are effective. News coverage is just evidence of the many greater
benefits, specifically, those who feel an attachment to French culture and who
may feel that it is threatened by immigration are likely to strongly support
the UMP, while those who are a minority of any type themselves or who have sympathy
for any minority group will likely vigorously support the PS.
Sources and Other Articles:
