UN RENOUVEAU DE LA PARTICIPATION ASSOCIATIVE ? L'engagement et le militantisme au sein du comité Attac Isère

1.1.2 Which revival of engagement ?

1.1.2.1 The participation of surveyed

In order to check our assumption, namely that Attac was built starting from the recovery and of working of a whole of social movements which took place during the years 1990, we analyzed the place that 1995 and the social movements which followed, occupy in the engagement of the militants. First of all, one can affirm that the majority of surveyed took part in the movements of strike. Indeed, six inquired took part in it and three did not take share there (one of the people interviewed was fifteen years old at the time and one can thus exclude it). Their professional statute was varied since those which took part were as well students (Cecile, Luc) that paid public sector (Julie, Lionel) or private sector (Thomas). The majority were to express by the means of a local union. It was for much with CFDT (Lionel, Julie, Luc), whereas Nicole Notat had not invited to express against the Juppe plan with which it was in agreement. On the other hand, those which took part in this movement seems to be marked rather little by that Ci. Their participation in these strikes seems to rise from their engagement trade-union or associative preexistent and it would seem that these events had few consequences on their engagement. Isabelle is the person for whom December 1995 seems to have had the most repercussions. She syndicated in CFDT in 1985. Its adhesion then reflected at the same time an agreement with the ideas of the trade union and an adhesion of opportunity because of the structuring of the trade unions by office on its place of work. It occupied the function of union delegate then taken more distance with CFDT since the election of Nicole Notat towards whom it is very critical. It preserves however a good opinion of its local union while showing Notat of « collaboration » with the government. In 1995, it expressed in Lyon with the CFDT section. It perceives its participation in the strikes like one « advance » and « a resumption of the more active action ».

On the other hand, inquired which most spontaneously evoked these events and which grant to it a great importance are the two people (Fabien, Laurent) who did not take part in it. Both were savagely opposed to the demonstrations and supported the Juppe plan. They saw in the plan of reforms proposed one « progress on social matters » and granted to Juppe one « courage » political. Both are rather reticent with the action of the trade unions which they judge too much « épidermiques ». A factor seems to account for the distinction between those which supported the strikes and those which criticized them. It is about the implication in association. Those which did not take part in December 95 locate in an adhesion without it have there a very important engagement of their share. On the other hand those which took part in it are militants implied in the local committee.

Julie: I took part in the movements of 95 and a certain number of demonstrations. I am descended in the street and there were many people. For me that represented forces which called into question much of things. The problem it is that after 1995 there no was use of these forces, there was a request for action because there was world in 1995 and it fell a little bit flat after but for me it is a advance, it was a resumption of the more active action. CFDT had invited to express but always in terms a little... Our sections on Grenoble had been mobilized but this says a blow they left fascinating and a blow they are not. It is the problem of the trade-union demonstrations, a unit blow and a blow that is not it but one does not know on what they are it where they are not it. As a CFDT section one had expressed on Grenoble because there were a strong current the bowl of heap of things to see at which point as paid one was pressurized and one did not have our word to say, one was put in front of the fact accomplished for heaps of things.

Fabien: I do not know if you remember of all these demonstrations which took place at the time of the Juppe plan. I am rather located left and I was however very for the Juppe plan. I went to say it in the assemblies of faculty and I was made set fire to, because the fashion it was not that. Everyone wanted to go in the same direction. I was a little in the position of Nicole Notat, who it also favoured rather this plan. I saw a whole series of positive aspects there. I found that this plan went rather in the good direction [...] I especially did not take part in the strikes! I was badly seen by my colleagues because I did not strike. Me I think that this Juppe plan was nevertheless a certain progress on social matters. I was astonished to see the turning which the things took. It is astonishing to see what started this reaction [...] This measurement had been taken by Balladur in 1993 but the public office escaped that. Juppe in 1995 took a series of rather significant measurements, and there was among those the idea to align the civils servant on what had been made two years before for the employees of the private one. And it is that which was judged as an intolerable attack with the social rights. Me that does not shock me.

Laurent: Me I was not teaching at that time, I prepared the IUFM. I remember, I had been against the movement because I found that was well to reform the social security and to reform the SNCF. Juppe had been courageous there above. Thus me I had not struck. Me I was rather so that one can reform the social security.

The participation of surveyed in the social conflicts which followed 1995, took place in a similar way. The people who were already committed in associative structures, trade-union or political (Cecile, Francois, Thomas) took part in the mobilizations of the unemployeds or the movements high-school pupils. For example, it is the case of Cecile who was high-school girl. Exit of a family of militants, it adhered to Ras the Face in 1995 and revolutionary communist Youths (JCR) in 1996. Cecile had a very strong participation in the social movements of the years 1990 : she mobilized herself at sixteen years for the demonstrations of 1995, the movements of unemployeds and the occupation of the ASSEDIC in 1997 and 1998. Lastly, it took share with the movements high-school pupils in 1998 during which it took part in debates on education. It explains why its associative engagement brought to discuss other topics that racism. Its participation in the social conflicts returns in continuity with its engagement militant and its support does not testify to an awakening as it was the case for Julie. Much of inquired was mobilized at this period on the topic of racism and the antifascism. The three people most implied in militant structures adhered to Ras the Face. On the other hand those which did not have specific engagement did not follow these events. It would seem that contrary to our initial assumption, the social conflicts contributed only very slightly to a reactivation of the participation.

Cecile : I was with Revolutionary Communist Youths in Lyon. I returned to Ras the Face when I was 16 years old, I remained there two years and then I returned with the JCR, I were seventeen years old. In fact it is the organization of youth of the League. I am the girl of militants of the League, my father is militant League for a very long time, it was there with the foundation but it does not militate much any more, it does not have a responsibility and my mother was militant with the League, she was militant with the PSU she militated in groups of women in the Seventies. I belong to a militant family and I had this socialization there too. That is not very astonishing. I knew people of the League by my parents, but as I militated in Ras the Face I was brought to militate in social movements and I had friends who were with Revolutionary Communist Youths and thus I came [...] And then politically I militated on the antifascism and that brought me to other reflections, I militated also much on feminist tricks and that led me to say to me... starting from the antifascism, to go up at this company there such as it is organized and that brings to reflect overall on the company and I felt the need to establish links with separate things. I went in many demonstrations, in 1998 I had been occupied ASSEDIC, they were movements of unemployeds. I had taken part in the movements of 1995, I were in third. I invested myself a little, there had been a movement high-school pupil also in 1998. There had been also a movement against the FRIEND whom I followed by far because I was not in Attac and I was more retorted in Ras the Face. For me universalization that was not crucial. It is when I arrived at Science-Po which I was interested in Attac because it is a set of themes which one studies more universalization. For the movement against the FRIEND I had been with a conference of Susan George.

Thomas: Short-nap cloth the Face, it is especially related to the emergence of the national face, of the call of the 250, that goes back to 1992 or 1993 with writers. I had not taken part in creation but I came after because there are five or six years that I do that, I took part in conferences. Now I cannot anything any more because I make Attac and then it is all. But I go nevertheless to the manifs, if it is necessary to give a blow of hand of course.

The events of 1995 do not seem to have had the impact supposed on the engagement of surveyed. Whereas we had put forth the assumption of a massive alarm clock of the participation, it would seem that 1995 were the release of engagement only for very little of surveyed^280(*). The majority took part in these events within the framework of their trade-union or associative engagement without that causing on their premises a return of the participation. On the other hand, two members were opposed to this social dispute. This leads us to two conclusions. First of all, adhesion with Attac is not recut strictly with the revival of the social conflicts. Inquired mainly took part in the strikes of December 1995, however it is primarily about inquired which militated already within an organization. Some inquired were even savagely hostile with the strikes.

In addition, it is a question of calling in question the central part played by the events of 1995 in the return of engagement. How then to explain that Attac is presented as the heir to 1995 who symbolizes the revival of the social conflict and a return of the participation? The events of December 1995 marks a revival of the social conflicts. First of all because they are at the origin of a new dash of social dispute which will develop at the end of the Nineties, but also because they made it possible to renew the forms of the dispute by taking note of the diversity of the actors which were committed and their possible unit. But can one say in so far as the social movements of 1995 precede the anti-mondialistes movements ? The refusal of the Juppe plan in the name of the anti-liberal ideology is enough it to make of them the premises of a movement anti-liberal such as Attac ?

* ²⁸⁰ Isabelle states to consider it regrettable that following the events of 1995, of the structures did not set up themselves to accompany this «  ask action  » and that the movement of dispute is «  fallen flat  ». That joined the idea that Attac took again on its account the dispute which was expressed already in 1995.