Didier Chabanet

European Governance and Democracy

This chapter examines two areas of public policy and mobilization corresponding to the defense of the rights of migrants and unemployed people, the latter being one of the pioneer expression of the so-called alter-globalization movement. The analysis suggests that the European Union (EU), even when it constitutes an alternative space for action, is not capable of substantially modifying the balances of power and the inequalities that are part of the national spaces. To a certain extent, a counterexample is provided by the unemployed, who have succeeded in mobilizing massively at EU level over the last few years, something they had not been capable of within the member states. Overall, groups with scant resources suffer much more from their limited means of action and their isolation at national level than from EU ostracism. In this view of things, migrants are doubtless an exceptional case since the measures taken by the EU are aimed at drastically limiting the arrival and entry of non-EU migrants. The combination of the powerful integration models embodied by the states and the policy overlay of increasingly strict controls on entry into EU territory is a dual obstacle to their action and its Europeanization. Nonetheless, the constraints are never total or irreversible. In particular, mobilization of migrants in the member states is fueled by exchanges of information and ideas allowing for comparison between militant experiences on a European scale.

Introduction: The Mobilization of the Unemployed in a Comparative Perspective

The mobilization of the unemployed has for long been considered by specialists in the field of collective action as a highly improbable phenomenon (see Galland and Louis 1981; Russ 1990; Demaziere 1996; Wolski-Prenger 1997 a nd 1998; Bourdieu 1998; Paugam 1998). The pioneering study carried out in Marienthal, Austria, in the early 1930s by Jahoda, Lazarsfeld, and Zeisel (1933), who emphasized the irremediable desocializing and destructuring effects of unemployment, served as a basis for this analysis. Thereafter, the obstacles that the unemployed had to overcome to get mobilized were largely documented and are essentially a throwback to the characteristics of a population subject to strong forces of social and political atomization (Schnapper 1981; Rolke 1988). The cause seems to have been heard and, by the same token, was never really questioned. It is moreover striking to note that the explanations put forward were always very similar, if not the same, whatever the countries or periods examined, rather as though the incapacity of the unemployed to claim was (virtually) taken for granted (Chabanet and Faniel 2011). On the whole, the arguments put forward can be summarized in four main categories: (1) The jobless would be deprived of a common identity, regarded as an indispensable prerequisite to any collective action. (2) Their position even as unemployed would encourage them even more to take shelter in individual survival strategies rather than to get mobilized in a situation from which they hoped to escape. (3)

The Long History of a New Cause: The Mobilization of the Unemployed in France

In the winter of 1997–1998, the unemployed were for long months in the “headlines” of social and political news for demanding loudly and clearly an increase in the minimum social payments and a Christmas bonus of 3,000 francs (about 450 euros). The mobilization on this occasion was sufficiently important—a hundred thousand at its height in January 1998 (Maurer 2000, 3)—to turn upside down usual analyses. Faced with the unexpected size of the movement, comments were in fact atfirst marked by astonishment if not incredulity. A recognized specialist in poverty and precariousness, Paugam (1998) this time evoked “an unprecedented movement” (73–6) thus well emphasizing its exceptional character. In the same vein, Bourdieu (1998) described the mobilization as a “social miracle” (102), the expression being moreover copiously picked up, to the point of getting a seal of approval (e.g., Maurer and Pierru 2001). Although they have the merit of emphasizing the specific difficulties encountered by the unemployed in acting collectively, these renderings are largely erroneous. They ignore in fact former episodes, which occurred in particular in the first part of the twentieth century, marked by large and repeated demonstrations by the unemployed. To understand why 1 and above all how the unemployed get mobilized, it is essential to go back to the interwar period, since it is at this time that actions by the unemployed on a meaningful scale see the light of day.

Contention over Unemployment in Britain: Unemployment Politics versus the Politics of the Unemployed

In Britain contention over unemployment has come to an end. In the last decade, the unemployed have stopped to voice their claims at the national level, and have resorted to occasional instances of protest only as the result of local industrial disputes (Cinalli and Statham 2005). This chapter aims first of all to assess how this long process of pacification has come about. Contention over unemployment has varied substantially across time, both in terms of intensity and forms, with the unemployed alternating waves of mobilization with periods of acquiescence. This chapter also asks whether current pacification might be reversed in the future. The main question is whether New Labour has achieved a durable settlement that can reintegrate the interest of the unemployed in the political space while keeping the unemployed themselves far from street protest. Could the unemployed return to collective action owing to an increasing rate of unemployment? In fact, unemployment may also be prioritized as a salient issue regardless of real rates of unemployment (Baxandall 2001; Giugni and Berclaz 2003; see also chapter nine in this volume), while invisible processes of contentious politics may be in act beyond the curtains of the pacified field (Melucci 1984 and 1989).1