It is a rare sequence which we witnessed on Wednesday evening on LCI. Robert Ménard was asked about the gap between his desire to welcome Ukrainian refugees today, and his rejection, yesterday, of people fleeing Syria, Iraq or Afghanistan. His answer has the merit of clarity: “I said, wrote, published a number of things in Béziers, for example at the time of the fighting in Syria and Iraq, about the arrival of refugees in our country… that I regret, that I am ashamed of “having said and done. Because morally, it was not right. There are not two kinds of victims.”
“This ‘double standard’ is not glorious for us, for me. It’s not a mistake, it’s a fault.”
Robert Ménard, support of Marine Le Penon LCI
Couldn’t be more explicit. Robert Ménard chooses his words carefully. He speaks knowingly of fault, that is to say, according to Robert’s definition, a breach of a moral rule. He says he is ashamed of it: it would be difficult to be clearer.
Of course, we always pride ourselves on correcting our faults. However, this correction must be genuine, rather than guided by strategic considerations. However, it seems to me that, when it comes to Robert Ménard, there is room for doubt. Barely seconds after making his mea culpa, he actually uses it to violently attack Éric Zemmour. This was the case Wednesday evening on LCI, and again Thursday morning on Public Sénat, where Robert Ménard renewed his regrets: “Even Éric Zemmour changes his mind. Faced with the weight of the monstrosity of his remarks, he realizes that he cannot continue. Even if he does so with reservations. Éric Zemmour’s speech is hard, brittle, without many traces of humanity.”
It is a very violent attack against Éric Zemmour who, in fact, had started by closing the door to the reception of Ukrainian refugees.
It is therefore a coherent position on the part of Robert Ménard, but it is above all an opportune position, used to attack the main competitor of Marine Le Pen, who is the candidate supported by Robert Ménard. However, precisely: on the merits, the position of the National Rally is, today, not very far from that of Éric Zemmour. Remember, for example, what Jordan Bardella, the president of the RN, said on Monday March 4 on franceinfo: “I feel much closer to what is happening today in Ukraine, at the gates of the European Union, than to what may have happened in Syria or Libya. I think that the reception of Syrians or Libyans fleeing fighting there can be in Arab countries, in Arab-Muslim countries.”
This distinction in the treatment to be reserved for the various refugees is exactly what Robert Ménard denounces. However, he is careful, on this subject, to strongly criticize the National Rally. He confesses, of course, “points of disagreement” with Marine Le Pen. But disproportionate to the moral condemnation with which he decks Éric Zemmour, even though the positions of one and the other, on the reception of refugees, are very close.
Some will consider it a simple pragmatic compromise, while others will call it outright hypocrisy. But, in one case as in the other, the common point is that it requires a part of strategy. And that is precisely what we can blame him for. A politician should be, precisely, accountable for his actions to the citizens. This does not only imply knowing how to recognize one’s faults. But also, to be able to draw the consequences.
Robert Ménard continues to support Marine Le Pen, even though he called one of his positions a “fault” and a “shame”. Beyond that, he exploits this opportunity to attack a competitor. Here, at the very least, is a very unfinished form of mea culpa.