France 2007: between struggles & elections
IS IT some historical joke that the Parti Socialiste
(PS) candidate for the presidency of the French Republic is called
Royal? Apart from that, PS members chose the only candidate who in
opinion polls seems able to defeat the right-wing candidate, Nicholas
Sarkozy. But is there a big difference between the two?
Recent years have seen a number of struggles and
political campaigns, such as the referendum on the European Union
constitution in 2005. Growing opposition against the government’s
neo-liberal policies has expressed itself in different ways. Although
some successes have been recorded, the mainstream of government policy
has remained the same. A new wave of attacks is being prepared, with
pensions a prime target: the number of years people have to work and the
specific pensions of rail workers and others.
Sarkozy’s long walk to become the sole right-wing
candidate has been successful. He presents himself as the best candidate
for the capitalists, clearly calling for a ‘rupture’: for a direct fight
against the working class. Sarkozy has not put himself in the forefront
at times of social struggle, but he is omnipresent in the media with
clear neo-liberal speeches. He represents a sharp break from the
Gaullist tradition of appearing to be above the classes while attacking
the workers slice by slice.
Over the last few years, French capitalism has been
set back internationally. Sarkozy’s main idea is to adapt the French
economy to that situation. Unlike the Gaullists, who always seek to
maintain France’s international position, the Sarkosists think that it
is better to accept the share permitted by the new situation. That
means, for example, trying to create huge multi-national corporations,
but in a limited number of sectors. Also, the policy in terms of taxes
is to push toward a more speculative economy. And a conscious policy of
racist provocation, but with some help to immigrants who adapt
themselves to the neo-liberal policies. That is combined with a very
repressive attitude towards the social and workers’ movements, and the
youth.
A lot of workers and young people see Sarkozy as a
big threat. He is the more hated politician among the youth of the poor
areas, the banlieue. For many workers, Sarkozy also appears as the
bosses’ candidate. A certain polarisation flows from that which partly
explains the successes of Ségolène Royal in the polls.
In the recent struggles and political campaigns, the
PS has not taken many risks. Its support for the EU constitution has
been given secondary priority since the struggle against the CPE (first
job contract) last year. A mass movement of young people and workers
stalled the government’s plans to implement this attack on the rights of
young workers. But the PS congress last September overwhelmingly adopted
a neo-liberal programme. Its choice of presidential candidate was not
based on confronting the right-wing political agenda, but on ‘who can
win against Sarkozy’ – but on the same terms. The most important issue
was the media profile of the candidate.
Although on the staff of the former ‘socialist’
president François Mitterrand at the beginning of the 1990s, and in
Lionel Jospin’s government, Royal does not appear as an ‘elephant’ –
part of the old PS leadership group who have huge weight and influence.
She has a regional base, always necessary in the PS, but does not appear
as a national leader, and has a kind of non-bureaucratic aura. The two
other candidates, Laurent Fabius and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, were
ministers rooted in the 1980s.
Royal also has the advantage of being a woman who
appears, from one side, very modern and, from the other, very
traditional. She is not married, has four children, and her partner is
PS national secretary, François Hollande. She appears very independent
from him. At the same time, she always praises ‘family values’.
In the ranks of the PS, 81% of the votes went to
Royal and Strauss-Kahn, both with neo-liberal positions. That shows the
transformation of the PS internally. Although Fabius raised demands
which were a bit more on the left (such as an immediate raise of €100 on
the minimum wage), he is responsible for many of the neo-liberal
policies of the past.
Up to now, the huge polarisation because of Sarkozy
is pushing two types of electors towards Royal. Most have an approach of
the ‘lesser evil’, thinking that attacks will be smoother under Royal
than Sarkozy. Certainly, the tactic of the PS will be to put forward a
few social measures to lighten some aspects of the capitalist offensive.
For example, it says it will create 500,000 jobs for young people. Paid
on the minimum wage, on private sector-type contracts lasting up to five
years, these contracts appear less casual than the CPE. Of course, in
the final analysis they are not: they would replace public-sector
contracts, and would be renewed each year, meaning they could be
cancelled. It is less brutal than Sarkozy. Nevertheless, it is this kind
of policy – along with more vicious attacks, such as the Aubry law that
officially reduced work to a 35-hour week but froze wages and introduced
huge ‘flexibility’ – which led to the defeat of Jospin in 2002.
Workers and youth will cast a kind of tactical vote.
The idea will be to avoid a Sarkozy victory without giving support to
Royal. Such a situation has arisen mainly because of the absence of a
candidate who could represent workers, young people and those fighting
against neo-liberal policies.
Lutte Ouvrière (LO) and the Ligue Communiste
Révolutionnaire (LCR) have been in a favourable position many times over
recent years. But the strong disagreements between the two have made it
impossible for them to take any meaningful joint initiatives. Both are
presented and seen as revolutionary organisations, but LO and the LCR
have refused to really challenge the union leaderships and create a new
political formation in which a layer of the working class and youth
could develop an independent political base.
It is always the rank and file and the unorganised
workers who are pushing for struggle, and who have forced the unions to
take part. For example, postal workers, mainly in Paris and its region,
were on strike several hours a week throughout November and December but
had to self-organise their strike with only the support of some local
unions. The government is speaking of attacking the pension system, and
has said that it will cut 5,000 education jobs. Already demos have been
called. But it will certainly, once again, be up to rank-and-file
workers to start the struggle if they are to get any results.
During the struggle against the CPE, neither LO nor
the LCR put forward an alternative to the union leaders and the
Communist Party (PCF). They followed the official organisations, the
‘days of action’, and did not launch any battles in bodies like the
national student coordinating body.
On the political ground, they took no initiatives at
all. Following the joint campaign against the EU constitution,
‘anti-neoliberal committees’ were formed which included the LCR, PCF,
other left groups and individuals. From the beginning, the LCR said that
it would lead to an ‘explosion’ if these bodies supported a candidate in
elections. The PCF is seeking to transform these committees into support
for its own candidate. In the end, all of this broke down and the LCR
and PCF have their own candidates. All those who were hoping for a joint
anti-neoliberal candidate have the feeling of being misled.
The presidential election will be a very important
moment. In a recent poll, 83% of young people said that they had a lot
or a certain interest in that election. Will there be struggles taking
place in the same moment is an important question. What is clear is that
the key issue is still the absence of a new workers’ party that could
pull together a layer of young people and workers who have struggled
over recent years and who refuse neo-liberal policies. This layer has no
real means of discussing collectively the alternative to capitalism.
This reduces the various struggles to being only about resistance, and
not movements to formulate a common strategy.
Unfortunately, the LCR and LO will not change their
attitudes in the next period. Nevertheless, a good vote for them would
be very significant. It would show the persistence of an anti-capitalist
vote, and the necessity and possibility of using it. Such a vote would
also confirm that socialist ideas could be discussed if the necessary
space to do that, a new workers’ party, were set up. It is clearly these
ideas, and linking them with the workers’ struggles, that Gauche
Révolutionnaire (CWI France) will put forward.
Alexandre Rouillard
Gauche Révolutionnaire (CWI France)
|