11RXNdQ

Colonialism and Neocolonialism 62
electors would have obliged him to adhere to rigorously, de Gaulle, if he is elected, will
remain in mid-air. That large body will float in empty space, above us but without a
pedestal. And since his supporters offload their contradictions onto him, he is the one
who inherits them.
Regarding the Algerian War, it is evident, at the present time, that he is hesitating and
playing for time – no more and no less than most French people. The men of the system
were malicious: they had clearly seen that a radical decision would have to be made
sooner or later – all-out pacification or negotiation. They then proceeded as they did after
Dien Bien Phu: they handed over their keys and their powers to a man of action, wished
him good luck and crept away on tiptoe. The system is dead, long live the system!
Because the system, at the present time, is de Gaulle. He alone.
How could it be any different? He has little desire to be the man of all-out war but even
less, perhaps, to be accused of selling out. If elected, he will be, like the Assembly, a
representative of the French people. But, at the same time, he derives his real power from
the Army. Without the blackmail of the paras, he would still be in Colombey. That mute
unanimity – always supposing that it is created around his name – is in itself an enigma.
Indeed, de Gaulle’s government presents all the characteristics which seemed to us to
define the system. He puts things off until tomorrow, that is to say, to the 28th. On the
29th, if he is elected, he will await the elections to the new Assembly and then his own
election. And it is precisely this stalling that translates his powerlessness: he fudges, he
evades, but the war of Algiers catches up with him in Paris. North Africans are being put
to the question in several towns in mainland France.
I am absolutely convinced that General de Gaulle abhors torture, that he considers that
it brings dishonour on the Army and that in Algeria, he reminded certain officers that
field telephones are made for telephoning. What does he do, though? What can he do? He
remains silent. So he covers up. Like Gaillard.
Besides, we live, today as the day before yesterday, in total unreality: impotence and
abstraction are leading once again to mere words. The old system looked for words which
evade while claiming to define. The system’s New Look seeks ambiguity, the phrase
which offers a double meaning, which appears to offer a double meaning and has none,
or the string of phrases where each individually seems intelligible, but whose sum equals
zero.
Or they play the trick of the word that is not spoken on us. It is in everybody’s mouth;
when you listen to the General, you wait for it, hope for it, fear it; each phrase is so well
constructed that it seems bereft of it: it must have escaped. It ends up blazing in people’s
eyes, resonating in their heads, the voice falls silent, some say ‘shit’, others ‘praise be to
God’. The General leaves, the next day’s press stresses that he did not once say the word
‘integration’. And what else? No revolving ministry, of course; although you can never
tell, with that two-faced Janus. Compromises, though, everywhere and at every moment:
Soustelle and Mollet as ministers, in exactly the way the future Prime Minister
constituted his team to please everybody, with the refinements of a mistress of the house.
Oh well, people will say, the system has won! What does it matter if de Gaulle is thinsliced
Republic: he has an impressive bearing, he will not be any worse than our deputies;
let us vote for him. That is precisely why we should not.
First, we no longer want the system, whether condensed or unfolded. It had to be