For the past three decades, one article of clothing has captivated the attention of the fashion capital of the world: headscarves. From Marine Le Pen to Emmanuel Macron, no French politician has managed to escape the discussion of religious clothing in the public sphere. The far-right’s hard anti-“Islamism” platform nearly propelled them to victory in the 2024 legislative elections, while international human rights groups such as Amnesty International and the UN OHCHR have decried the steady rise of Islamophobia. While these positions are often framed as an expression of the cherished French principle of laïcité, or secularism, they reflect an insidious trend: the manipulation of secularism as a weapon against minority groups. The French application of laïcité, in its modern form, is fundamentally incompatible with the pluralistic ideals of democracy.
The 1905 Law on the Separation of the Churches and the State formally established laïcité as a cornerstone of French governance. The law bars the state from officially recognizing, funding, or endorsing any religious sect. Initially, laïcité emerged as a response to the outsized influence of the Catholic Church in French politics and education. By secularizing public institutions, the law aimed to create a neutral public space, in which citizens of any or no faith could participate equally. At its best, this framework represents an effort to protect individual freedoms and promote government accountability.
Today, French leaders have found a powerful shield from calls of Islamophobia in laïcité. Far from fostering equality, its modern application has targeted France’s Muslim population. Debates over religious expression entered public discourse with the 1989 “headscarf affairs,” sparked by the expulsion of several Muslim girls from a public middle school. While state law already prohibited faculty and staff from wearing or promoting religious symbols, this action sparked a fierce debate over whether this obligation could be extended to students, culminating in a landmark 2004 law prohibiting the wearing of any religious symbols in public schools. As of 2010, full-face coverings in any public spaces are prohibited.
Throughout these debates, public discourse has shifted from Islam, a religion, to “Islamism,” a perceived set of values and politicized beliefs that are incompatible, and indeed a danger to, the French Republic. These ideas are not confined to far-right circles; indeed, it was centrist President Emmanuel Macron who oversaw the passage of the 2021 Séparitisme law after defining “Islamist separatism” in a 2020 speech as “[a] conscious, theorized, political-religious project is materializing through repeated deviations from the Republic’s values. While these laws claim to apply neutrally to all religions, they disproportionately target Muslims. For example, though proponents argued the 2010 face-covering ban was necessary for public safety, widespread mask mandates during the COVID-19 pandemic were deemed to pose no such threat.
However, even if these bans had been equally applied across religions, the application of laïcité would still represent an unacceptable infringement on civil liberties and the private sphere.
France continues to hold free and fair elections, but civil liberties are under attack. In their 2018 book How Democracies Die, Daniel Levitsky and Steven Ziblatt embrace civil liberties as a crucial indicator of democratic health, noting that the restriction of basic civil rights and the suppression of discourse are signs of authoritarian behavior. Under laïcité, Muslim women who wish to wear the headscarf face severe restrictions on their right to religious expression. French Muslims have also seen their rights to assembly and dissent curtailed. In 2020, Macron pressured Muslim leaders to sign a “Charter of Islamic Principles” denying the existence of state racism and barring mosques from engaging in ideological discourse. That same year, Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin dissolved the Collective Against Islamophobia in France, the nation’s largest legal defense organization for Muslims, arguing such measures were necessary to “save our children from the clutches of the Islamists.” The 2021 Séparatisme law further mandates that associations pledge loyalty to the Republic to receive state subsidies. Under the banner of laïcité, French politicians have sought to attack fundamental tenets of democracy while purporting to protect the Republic.
By defining “Islamists” as fundamentally opposed to the Republic, French politicians have rejected pluralism in favor of a narrow definition of French identity. Advocates of laïcité claim that state neutrality is fundamental to democracy; while true in principle, neutrality does not necessitate universal suppression. Genuine neutrality involves universal tolerance, accommodating all beliefs without disproportionately targeting any one group.
Political theorists such as Levitsky and Ziblatt acknowledge that democracy is not merely procedural; it requires liberal pluralism. By suppressing visible markers of Muslim identity, France’s current interpretation of laïcité sacrifices pluralism for a homogenized citizenry.
However, opponents of laïcité must grapple with its most challenging defense: the will of the majority. According to a 2019 poll by the Institut français d’opinion publique, 70% of French citizens supported banning religious insignia in all public spaces, and 80% identified Islam as a threat to laïcité. While this democratic support may appear to validate laïcité, history has shown us that a democracy can support its own destruction – from electing authoritarians, to supporting legislation that aggrandizes the executive, to limiting electoral access for opposition voters. Democratic erosion by definition, emerges through democratic processes. Any action to reform laïcité will certainly face the pitfalls of threatening democracy itself by subverting the will of the people; however, democratic systems must protect themselves against exclusion and repression.
To safeguard its democracy, France must reimagine its commitment to laïcité. A truly democratic secularism would prioritize inclusion and pluralism, recognizing that state neutrality means respecting religious diversity rather than suppressing it. This transformation requires confronting the misuse laïcité in oppressing French Muslims and constricting the private sphere. Only by aligning secularism with democratic ideals can France hope to build a society that upholds equality and liberty for all its citizens.
I think you make a really interesting argument about how laïcité erodes civil liberties, which are a key component of a consolidated democracy. It seems like the crux of your argument hinges on the assertion that religious expression should be protected the same way as religious beliefs. To target Muslim beliefs would be one thing — but France is targeting expressions of religion. It is true that laïcité, as the hallmark of state secularism, will inevitably affect the least secular institutions and the most religious individuals. But in France, Muslims are actually more religious than Christians; in fact, more than half of Muslims in Europe subscribe to a set of beliefs that political scientists would describe as Islamic Fundamentalism. One core component of fundamentalism is the view that religious law is more important — or more valid — than the laws of the country you reside in. In the United States, there’a a lot of Christian fundamentalism, too. But state secularism doesn’t exist in the United States, and there isn’t really as much clash between the Bible and U.S. law, as there is between Islamic law and French law. I’m not saying this is a good thing — but I would disagree that France’s ongoing clash between state secularism and religious fundamentalism is eroding its democracy via crackdowns on civil liberties. If anything, I’d say that it’s given rise to populists who are eroding democracy in more subtle ways.
Hi Tessa! Your piece put forward a fascinating argument of which I had no prior knowledge before reading your post. While I knew that Islamophobia is a pertinent issue in France, I did not realize that policies targeted at reducing religious freedom were rooted in a long-standing principle. I find it so interesting how a concept like laïcité can end up restricting freedom even when its original aim was to expand it. Through your description of the manner in which it is applied by the French government, I am also convinced that it is harmful to democracy. In selecting one group to be the target of religious suppression, the French government is not sustaining civil liberties as a democracy should. They claim they don’t like religious symbols in public spaces as a whole, but I would imagine a person on the street wearing a cross necklace for Christianity is not subject to the same kind of judgment. You are right in saying that a concept meant to bolster universal freedom for French citizens has actually suffocated it. However, since laïcité seems to enjoy popular support, do you foresee a future in which Muslim people are guaranteed religious freedom in France? What will it take for their rights to be recognized by the government?