Researchers or members of various administrations, a collective of thirteen people is indignant, in a tribune in the "World", the disappearance of an institute dedicated to the fact that security is no longer in France "a blind spot of the action public authorities ".
Tribune. A decision of the Prime Minister is a stroke of the pen of an institution that, for thirty years, has, without being challenged by anyone, achieved the objectives and the missions at the origin of its creation. The abolition of the National Institute of Higher Studies of Security and Justice (Inhesj) is incomprehensible and therefore unacceptable.
The Inhesj was created in 1989, with the aim of making the issue of security, fraught with stakes and conflicts in the political field, an object of knowledge constituting a basis for debate and action: in short, to ensure that security is no longer, in France, a blind spot for the action of the public authorities.
From the outset, the Institute is built on two dimensions, which will give birth to a field of action totally original, at the intersection of scientist and politician, intended to invent and make live a "culture of security ".
Where is the diagnosis, what are the arguments?
For thirty years, the big ones were treated as the "small" questions that, in terms of security, constituted so many problems and challenges for French society. This work mobilized a plurality of representatives of different scientific disciplines (social sciences, law, political science, history, criminology …), but also state and civil society executives, police and gendarmerie officials. , prefects, magistrates, business leaders and so many other actors. Research and action have been the two bases of all the work done.
To delete altogether today, this institute would mean that it is estimated that security issues have decreased in intensity in France, which no sensible person thinks, that the Institute itself no longer fulfills its missions. , which no one claims, or that it is permanently obsolete – which is possible, but it is then necessary to demonstrate it. Now where is the report, where is the diagnosis, what are the arguments?
This decision, incomprehensible because taken at the speed of lightning, has as its official motivation a recent circular of the Prime Minister advocating a simplification of the administrative landscape by "The reduction in the number of bodies and commissions attached to central administrations", and asking administrations to "Justify the maintenance of structures whose size does not exceed 100 FTE" (full-time equivalents) by making proposals for deletions or regroupings. No proposal for consolidation or reconfiguration has been made, outright deletion is planned. It would therefore have been held that the interdisciplinary work carried out by the Inhesj had suddenly become devoid of purpose, and that it was necessary to return to a compartmentalized system where each ministry, internally, took care of its own tasks.