- ATD Fourth World

In the light of the statements and analyses we have just heard, it is a little difficult to slip back into the proposed programme and agenda. I must admit that the presentation by Mr Geremek concerns me deeply, firstly because when we hear people talking of all the centuries of poverty and exclusion we tend to ask ourselves whether we are not faced with a trend that is not just gloomy, but irreversible and whether there is any point in to asking ourselves whether we can in fact change anything by the year 2010, as European summits have suggested, and as Xavier Godinot is suggesting now.

It is also true that after the analysis we have just been given, I find I must ask, at the risk of being slightly more provocative, where exactly the problem lies in all this? What are we actually talking about? Does the problem lie with the poor? Or is it in our societies, which apparently need to maintain and 'secrete' such poverty? And if we subscribe to the latter view, does that then mean on the whole (and excuse me Mr Geremek if I am distorting your suggestion slightly) that we are saying poverty is a necessary evil? It is therefore normal for this evil to be accepted, so it is understandable that the drive to prevent it is not very forceful.

Where does the problem lie? Is it in the previously mentioned gulf between the economic and social spheres, even though it is this gulf that presents us with another problem - that of reconciling the short, medium and long term? It has been said, and quite rightly so, that failing to prevent exclusion generates delinquency, which in turn leads to a cost, which will sooner or later have to be absorbed back into the economic system.

Finally, what issue is it that we are tackling over these two days? Is it poverty, extreme poverty or exclusion? Or is it rather the issue of why our societies invariably experience this phenomenon of exclusion? Why do they need it? After all, if I understood correctly that is pretty much what we were told this morning? I am deliberately using technical language: It is a wheel of poverty, of people in a situation of great precariousness. 

However, I am fully aware that I have not been given the floor to say this, so I shall try and return to the subject on which I was asked to speak. 

Essentially, the reason for a forecasting process being applied to these issues is clearly the fact that, compared with the past, which was characterised by the fait accompli and therefore the knowable fact (which nonetheless does not always stop historians arguing about different interpretations of history), the future is not something that can be pinned down in terms of facts. You have told us about the right of the poor to history. I say that the poor also have the right to a future, and to a different type of future, because the future is not about the fait accompli and is not predetermined. As a result, it is not restricted to the realms of what is known, which is not to say that there are no gloomy prospects and no problems. It is important to identify them clearly, yet the future is - I should like to say – all about freedom.

To my mind, one quite fundamental point in the forecasting process, on which we would like to embark together, is the idea that there is no absolute inevitability in the fact that poverty is still worsening, is continuing and is escalating indefinitely. There are different possible futures ahead of us. So, is it a question of possible futures for society or of possible futures focussing exclusively on the issue of poverty and exclusion?

There are several possible futures ahead of us; it is up to us to try and anticipate them, not to feel as if we are condemned before we start. And there is a second notion in the forecasting process: if the future is open to several possible outlooks, which it is important that we anticipate, then it is equally true that it is a matter of being willing and able. A few brief thoughts, then, on being able. First, Talleyrand's famous saying that we often hear: "If something is urgent, it's already too late." We are always hearing decision-makers, including political decision-makers, who are supposed to embody the long term, say: "I'm doing this because I don't have any choice", implying that they have let the situation go on too far, leaving them no option. They are trapped and all they can do now is try and adapt to a situation that they didn't choose to get into. The reality now is that the run of events themselves will make their decisions for them.

I think that the interest in anticipating, for want of being in a position to tell with any certainty what the future holds, lies in alerting us to possible changes at a point at which we can still either avoid them, or alter the course of events. Therein lies a certain skill in educating people in the art of anticipation that needs to be developed vis-à-vis our decision-makers, who are too caught up in what is freely referred to nowadays as the tyranny of urgency, too bogged down by acting as the social sector's 'rescue services'. However, this skill also needs to be developed in a more general sense vis-à-vis all members of a society, the poor no more or less than any others. If people want to exert any kind of control over their destiny, they need to become aware that they possess a certain ability, a little bit of power, and that they must not allow their room for manoeuvre to be eroded by events and circumstances. When I say they have room for manoeuvre, I am not so naïve as to imagine that they are all-powerful, politicians any more than the poor or the average citizen. We find ourselves on a stage bestrode by different players, some more powerful than others, who will pull in different directions, so to speak, that will be more or less consensual or clashing. Hence the fact that we used to say: "The future will depend on the various factors, players and the strategy they decide to follow."

All of us, regardless of our social status, are potential players. We have heard about the knowledge of the poor; I maintain that the poor also have some power. We all have some leverage, even if we are inclined to dismiss it on the pretext that it is too small, inferior, that we do not know how to make good use of it and that there are others infinitely more powerful than ourselves upon whom our future depends. In actual fact, our future depends on the game played by these actors and on whether we allow only the rich, only those to whose advantage it will be to reproduce the system, to act. The odds are that the serious difficulties highlighted by Mr Geremek will be replicated indefinitely in precisely the same way. As such, we need to find it in ourselves to - I would almost go so far as to say - revolt against the propensity of dominant players on the stage to perpetuate the status quo indefinitely. I used to say: "The future is all about what people want". Let me paint you a picture. As I like to say, at heart we are all like navigators, simultaneously trying to anticipate the wind that is getting up (for this he uses a look-out) and the reef lying ahead of us. A navigator will perhaps postulate some exploratory scenarios, ask himself what will become of his strategic environment, i.e. what will become of the society of which he is part? And then that same navigator, this time in the role of a player, will use another tool, the rudder. He will ask himself: What can I do or what would I like to do? How can I take advantage of the threats and opportunities posed by my environment to get myself out of the situation I am in, and move forward in the direction I have chosen for myself?