The title of his book resonates strangely with current events. In The permanent insecurity (Editions du Cerf), published on February 24, Eric Delbecque, former deputy director of the National Institute for Advanced Studies in Security and Justice and former director of security at Charlie Hebdo, looks at a source of anxiety that pre-dated the war in Ukraine: the fear of being attacked, robbed, robbed. What some call the “feeling of insecurity”.
The expert delivers a rich reflection on the phenomenon and draws up many avenues for reform. His conviction? The deep security problems can only be solved if we put in place strategic plans over the long term, ten years, at least. A “state strategist” policy that existed, even in this area, before being abandoned “in the 1980s”, analyzes the expert. Because elected officials, eager for immediate results, no longer wanted to wait. Far from producing solutions, this “short-termism” would prevent us from imagining ambitious reforms. And if we finally debate? That’s good, there is a presidential election in a month.
L’Express: Why speak of “permanent insecurity”, when the figures show no recent outbreak in this area?
Eric Delbecque: I assume: I think that the debate on insecurity should not be reduced to figures. These figures are work indicators for the police services. If we globalize this analysis too much, we learn nothing more. Besides, the figures can be oriented, according to the number of complaints that we take, the priorities of the moment. Over the very long term, of course we live in an increasingly peaceful society. And yet, the French who live in difficult neighborhoods, the most disadvantaged, tell of being confronted with petty crime, a “little insecurity”, what is sometimes trivially called “incivility”. These facts are not always criminally qualifiable, but they exist. The police and the gendarmes also tell of this increase in violence. Perception is not an illusion, it is part of reality.
You describe the Holland years as the peak of “deafness” on these issues. Why ?
This stems from my discussions with some of the president’s teams. It was almost impossible to address these issues dispassionately. There was the obsession of “not making amalgam”, I felt the weight of an ideological tradition which theorized the undervaluation of security. It should not pass for a “safe”. However, we often talk about the concerns of the most disadvantaged.
This generated almost a form of omerta on issues related to radicalization, for example. However, the first victims of the Islamists are the people who live in the same neighborhoods. Manuel Valls was not on this line and he was Prime Minister. But precisely, he had trouble making himself heard. He was said to be a “safe”, a “tough”.
Have we witnessed an awareness on these subjects during the Macron five-year term?
I think so. With the assassination of Samuel Paty, we realized that Islamist soft power could ideologically heat up individuals who then take action. The law confirming republican principles is therefore a step in the right direction. The joint work of the State services within the departmental cells for the fight against Islamism and community withdrawal demonstrates a positive development, which must be confirmed. The dissolution of the CCIF [NDLR : le Collectif contre l’islamophobie en France] too.
How can the state regain control of these neighborhoods that are called the “lost territories of the Republic”?
You need a comprehensive plan. Today, I say it: the State is not putting itself in a position to regain control of these neighborhoods. The necessary strategic orientations are not taken. On the one hand, economic activity and public services must be brought back to these neighbourhoods. When there is no more state, people fall back on something else. And then, to ensure that the laws of the Republic are respected. This presupposes real coordination between the actors, a strategic organization that I did not see appear. All of these are political choices that will have to be made, without backing down. Because it can take up to ten years. If we don’t show an extremely strong political will, we won’t succeed.
Can the legalization of cannabis be part of the solution?
I am not a public health expert. But I observe that in Colorado, legalization has produced mixed results. The banking sector was reluctant to manage this activity, which continued to generate a lot of cash, with the risks that entails.
Should we review the organization of justice, which the police regularly demand?
No. It is understandable that the police are frustrated by the lack of efficiency of the penal system. But, in my opinion, there is no laxity of justice. I would like to believe that there are ideologized judges, but that does not represent the profession as a whole. The problem is that there is no real penal policy. We no longer reflect on the meaning of the penalty. Maybe a shorter sentence, which comes sooner, would be more of a deterrent. Today, conviction comes at the end of the chain, sometimes after a few years. This slowness of justice is a huge problem.
In your book, you defend the police, sometimes accused of covering themselves in the event of a blunder. We think of these cases of flash-ball shootings for which the agents refuse to give the name of the shooter. Shouldn’t the IGPN be reformed?
Already, I allow myself not to have an opinion on the files that I have not appraised. Then, it seems to me that we must stop accusing the police and the gendarmes of being systematically violent. There is no system of impunity for law enforcement and it seems to me that the inspections are doing a good job. We must not throw reproach on them. I would also remind you that we also have the media, lawyers, the Defender of Rights, to serve as a counterweight in the event of abuse.
You are also a specialist in economic intelligence. How would the measures of economic protectionism, which you defend, make it possible to promote the “economic security” of France?
“Economic security” is basically prosperity. Faced with countries that behave like economic predators, it is essential to think about these issues. In China, do you realize, in each state service, there are 130,000 people working. It’s colossal. For a long time, when we said that, it passed for a paranoid fantasy. We were taken for a nerd who refuses liberalism. Covid has changed things a bit. We realized that it is important to produce on the territory, except to be dependent on other powers. Now, it’s good to have an abstract awareness, but I would like to see, on concrete issues, changes in policy.