Had you lived in Paris on this date in 1898, and read L'Aurore, a daily newspaper in the French Capital, you would have encountered perhaps the most important and influential newspaper piece of all time. Emile Zola had been incensed at the conviction of Capt. Alfred Dreyfus of treason in 1894, a conviction based largely on documents not introduced into evidence at the trial, secretly delivered to the trial judges after they had retired to determine their verdict. Dreyfus had had no opportunity to confront the evidence against him, in fact had no prior knowledge of the documents.
It did not matter that originally the French military commanders had believed Dreyfus guilty of the charges. By 1896 they knew them to be false. Yet to "protect" the army they engaged in a massive coverup, including the acquittal at court martial of the real culprit, Commandant Ferdinand Esterhazy, acquitted him of the crime which the military knew he had committed, and for which Dreyfus had been at Devil's Island since 1895
This posting is about Zola and Dreyfus, to be sure.
It is also about our time and place, our government. For on this anniversary should we not consider the implications of this famous newspaper piece for our nation and ourselves?
I will not recount the entire history of either the Dreyfus affair or the tribulations of Zola, who a few weeksweeks after the publication was convicted of criminal libel and sentenced to one year, despite the fact that at his trial Zola introduced by the defense made it clear that Esterhazy had committed the offenses for which Dreyfus had been sentenced. Zola fled to England rather than serve his sentence.
Public opinion turned in favor of Zola and Dreyfus, Dreyfus's conviction was vacated with a new trial ordered, and Zola's libel conviction was overturned. Zola had returned to France
Amazingly, at retrial Dreyfus was again convicted, although almost immediately pardoned and set free, and the conviction was eventually reversed by France's highest court in 1906. Dreyfus had his rank restored, was promoted, and received the Legion of Honor in a military ceremony that Zola did not live to see, having himself died in 1902 from asphyxiation from chimney fumes. Many historians think he was assassinated by right-wing extremists who stopped up his chimney.
None of the conspirators against Dreyfus were ever punished, even though their names were known. Many were high-ranking and important military officials, well-connected.
Dreyfus has been a convenient scapegoat, because he was Jewish. Zola accused the government of anti-semitism, and anti-semites responded to him with the expected vitriol.
What does this mean for us?
There is no doubt that much official wrong-doing in our nation also goes unpunished. Were we to look only at the past administration, the number of offenses about which we now know are staggering -
.. manufacturing "intelligence"
.. political prosecutions (Don Siegelman)
.. lying to Congress
.. torture
.. destruction of evidence (CIA destroying tapes of "interviews")
.. war crimes in both Afghanistan and Iraq
.. violation of rights of defendents (Padilla, Walker Lindh, Hamdi, etc.)
.. financial wrongdoing - start merely with the billions unaccounted for in Iraq
(and you should feel free to add examples to this list)
It may be hard to see lessons for our nation from Zola's actions, but I would argue there are.
Had our news media been more aggressive in pursuit of the truth in 2002 it is not clear that the nation would have supported going to war in Iraq. We had no Emile Zola. Oh, we had voices that spoke out, but none with the force of that January 13, 1898 piece, an open letter to the President of France. It is not that our newspapers cannot have a similar impact - think of the front-page story in the Washington Post that disclosed the mistreatment of our troops at Walter Reed, and the firestorm that ensued.
There have been publications that have been as blunt and informative as was Zola's 4,000 word piece, but they have not had the visibility his did, and hence have not had the impact. I can think of several blog posts I have read, here and elsewhere, which reminded me of Zola's words (which you can read in English or if you have the skill in the original French). I think we as bloggers have some capacity to learn from Zola, to make our voices more effective.
Allow me to offer the heart of Zola's accusation so that you can see why I say that. It appears towards the end:
But this letter is long, Mr. President, and it is time to conclude.
I accuse Major Du Paty de Clam as the diabolic workman of the miscarriage of justice, without knowing, I have wanted to believe it, and of then defending his harmful work, for three years, by the guiltiest and most absurd of machinations.
I accuse General Mercier of being an accomplice, if by weakness of spirit, in one of greatest iniquities of the century.
I accuse General Billot of having held in his hands the unquestionable evidence of Dreyfus's innocence and of suppressing it, guilty of this crime that injures humanity and justice, with a political aim and to save the compromised Chie of High Command.
I accuse General De Boisdeffre and General Gonse as accomplices of the same crime, one undoubtedly by clerical passion, the other perhaps by this spirit of body which makes offices of the war an infallible archsaint.
I accuse General De Pellieux and commander Ravary of performing a rogue investigation, by which I mean an investigation of the most monstrous partiality, of which we have, in the report of the second, an imperishable monument of naive audacity.
I accuse the three handwriting experts, sirs Belhomme, Varinard and Couard, of submitting untrue and fraudulent reports, unless a medical examination declares them to be affected by a disease of sight and judgment.
I accuse the offices of the war of carrying out an abominable press campaign, particularly in the Flash and the Echo of Paris, to mislead the public and cover their fault.
Finally, I accuse the first council of war of violating the law by condemning a defendant with unrevealed evidence, and I accuse the second council of war of covering up this illegality, by order, by committing in his turn the legal crime of knowingly discharging the culprit.
While proclaiming these charges, I am not unaware of subjecting myself to articles 30 and 31 of the press law of July 29, 1881, which punishes the offense of slander. And it is voluntarily that I expose myself.
As for the people I accuse, I do not know them, I never saw them, I have against them neither resentment nor hatred. They are for me only entities, spirits of social evil. And the act I accomplished here is only a revolutionary mean for hastening the explosion of truth and justice.
I have only one passion, that of the light, in the name of humanity which has suffered so and is entitled to happiness. My ignited protest is nothing more than the cry of my heart. That one thus dares to translate for me into court bases and that the investigation takes place at the great day! I wait.
Please accept, Mr. President, the assurance of my deep respect.
Zola knew what he was doing, and the risks to which he exposed himself I am not unaware of subjecting myself to articles 30 and 31 of the press law of July 29, 1881, which punishes the offense of slander. And it is voluntarily that I expose myself.
He bore no personal animosity towards those he accused: I do not know them, I never saw them, I have against them neither resentment nor hatred. They are for me only entities, spirits of social evil. Insofar as we allow our hatred and animosity to dominate what we write, I believe our words lose effectiveness. We must be able to make our charges without resorting to ad hominem attacks. Part of the power of Zola's wrods is that he does not dilute the impact of his words with personal demeaning of those he accuses.
We are political. Many of us - and I include myself in this - consider the political impact of what we say and do. That can certainly be appropriate. It can be, but is not necessarily always so.
Zola risked having his voice completely silenced as a result of what he wrote. He spoke on principle, as his final paragraph makes clear:
I have only one passion, that of the light, in the name of humanity which has suffered so and is entitled to happiness. My ignited protest is nothing more than the cry of my heart. That one thus dares to translate for me into court bases and that the investigation takes place at the great day! I wait.
Not every issue will rise to a point requiring this kind of response. Policy difference, no matter how heated, are to me insufficient reasons for such a response, no matter how forceful we might choose to make our rhetorical expressions. Certainly policy differences can have impacts upon people that are unfair inequitable, and that justifies some amount of righteous anger on our part.
Where there should be no doubt that we are called to emulate Zola is when people's lives are ruined by false accusations, when official wrong-doing is covered up, when those responsible are not held accountable, for in such circumstances the social order ceases to have meaning upon which we can depend - the rules become meaningless if not applied equitably, and protecting the "good name" be it of CIA agents, prosecutors, business executives, religious leaders or politicians should not outweigh the true meaning of justice, of righteousness. Yes, we can temper justice with mercy, but not at the expense of injustice to an innocent party.
Zola had a clear voice. He also wrote in a time where his voice was not drowned out by the noise of meaningless stories about insubstantial matters.
I have only one passion, that of the light, in the name of humanity which has suffered so and is entitled to happiness.
A passion for the light - for truth, for the healing of injustice and restoration to happiness.
111 years ago today Emile Zola published his piece. May the example of his courage never be forgotten.
Peace.