No blue wave over France
UP TO the end of the ‘official campaign’ for the
French assembly elections, (after which the publication of media polls
is forbidden), all commentators predicted a big victory for the UMP
(president Nicolas Sarkozy’s party) and its allies of the Nouveau Centre
(NC). Some polls suggested a blue wave of up to 470 seats. Even
Dominique Strauss-Kahn, former Parti Socialiste (PS) finance minister
and a contender for PS presidential candidate, said on national radio
that 120-140 PS MPs "would be a good resistance".
In the end, the results surprised everybody. The UMP
won 323 seats (compared to 359 in the previous parliament), the PS 205
(compared to 149). The centre is now split into a pro-Sarkozy party, the
NC, and the more neutral Mouvement Démocrate (Modem), led by another
presidential candidate, François Bayrou. The NC fell from 29 to 20
seats, with four for Modem. The Parti Communiste (PCF) held onto 4.5% in
the first round and 15 seats after the second, giving PCF and its allies
18 seats (21 before).
These results show what was clear from the
presidential elections and the first round of the parliamentaries: the
social base for Sarkozy is very weak but the lack of a clear left
alternative shows that there is not strong support for the PS. This is
reinforced by the very low turnout (60% but down to 40% in working-class
and poor areas). Sarkozy is still attempting to accelerate his
neo-liberal agenda but, at the same time, is less certain that it will
be easy.
After Sarkozy’s victory in the presidential
election, a certain demoralisation was dominant, combined with real
anger in some layers of society. For the first time, small demos took
place in every city to show opposition to Sarkozy. These were harshly
repressed by the police. None of the main left organisations – from
Lutte Ouvrière (LO), Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire (LCR) to the PS –
nor the unions backed these demos. The PS even condemned them, as did
the student union. Even LCR spokesperson and candidate, Olivier
Besancenot, condemned "individual violence" without speaking about the
state violence.
This demoralisation was partly due to the fact that,
as soon as the first-round results were known, the PCF, LO and LCR
rushed to call for a vote for the PS candidate, Ségolène Royal. This led
to an over-focus on the second-round result and allowed Royal to
campaign for the centre ground. The main debate was not how to use this
polarisation to prepare for struggle but only, will Sarkozy win or not?
The question of what kind of policy would Royal endorse was completely
put in the background. This pressure for a ‘lesser evil’ vote was wrong.
Although, of course, we have to be very flexible in our approach to
workers and youth who voted ‘tactically’ for Royal against the
super-arrogant Sarkozy.
Even worse than that, the LCR did not use its result
of over 4% to push proposals and initiatives for a new workers’ party.
It let the vote for Royal be the only way of opposing Sarkozy, missing
an opportunity to start building a tool to prepare real class
resistance.
The real reason for the partial setback for the UMP
was the ‘TVA sociale’ – a rise of 5% in value added tax alongside a
lowering of corporation tax. This was only published in a study, but
government minister, Jean-Louis Borloo, was forced to give details by
Laurent Fabius, former PS prime minister. This gave the PS the chance to
oppose price rises and pose as a ‘left’ opposition, with little
political danger.
This shows that as soon as social issues arise,
Sarkozy’s majority can collapse. That is why he is pushing ahead with
his programme: restricting the right to strike, taking steps toward
privatising universities, increasing health-care costs (a €10 ticket per
person per year for access to doctors and hospitals), and attacks on
work contracts.
Sarkozy’s idea is also to implicate the traditional
left in his policies. He will give the PS presidency of the finance
commission in the national assembly and his government includes some
former PS members and radicals, such as Bernard Kouchner, co-founder of
Médicins Sans Frontières.
Sarkozy is pushing the bosses’ organisations and
trade unions to start discussions. The unions have accepted even though
this will lead to betrayal – as in 2003 when the CFDT accepted the
government’s counter-reform on pensions, despite mass strikes.
Discussions have been held between trade unions,
student unions, and university presidents. It was soon apparent that the
proposed legislation was very far-reaching – many universities could
quickly become autonomous, able to raise their own finances, etc, a
clear step toward privatisation – so the unions and student unions were
forced to raise their voices. Now the government has accepted the need
for further talks. It is, of course, a manoeuvre. At the same time, it
shows that the government is not that confident of confronting student
strikes or movements.
Sarkozy is the best president for the capitalists.
With him, there is the possibility that the president is much more in
charge of the government than before. Cynically, Sarkozy said that the
PS has ‘abandoned Jaurès’, that is, it is not a workers’ party anymore.
As an echo, Royal said that she lost the election because she was forced
to defend things such as the 35-hour week legislation (that actually
created huge ‘flexibility’ and pay freezes), and the minimum wage at
€1,500. Her programme would have meant a real raise of just €50 over
five years. She is one of the leaders who want to transform the PS into
a bourgeois party like the US Democrats. Royal has always said that Tony
Blair was her model.
Other PS leaders want to go in an even more clearly
pro-capitalist direction. Strauss-Kahn suggested that the word
‘socialist’ should be abandoned. Many are speaking of a refoundation of
the left that has not won any major elections since 1997. This could
lead to a new party more in the centre. It also could have a temporary
phase of integrating elements from the PCF and Greens on the model of
the DS in Italy. On 23 June, the PCF, PS and Greens held national
councils and all of them had motions calling for refoundation,
dissolution, etc. The period ahead could be one of big transformations
in the traditional left, with splits on the right and left.
LO and LCR seem to be determined not to play a key
role. Having missed opportunities between 1995 and 2003, LO has
collapsed electorally. The LCR speaks of the need for a ‘new left force’
but never deals concretely with it. No public meetings have been planned
or party documents produced. The LCR called for a vote ‘to defeat the
right’ in the second round of the parliamentary elections, showing that
it does not have a consistent analysis of where the PS is now. Hoping
for mass struggle in the autumn, the LCR has postponed all decisions to
December or the beginning of 2008.
Its internal divisions reflect the existence of very
different trends inside it, and create a difficulty to promote a clear
project. It never explicitly refers to socialism except in a few
congress documents. But it is a point of attraction due to the
anti-capitalist profile of the young postal worker, Besancenot. Many
youth and workers have contacted the LCR to join the ‘party of Olivier’.
This shows the potential for a new anti-capitalist party. A big mistake
would be for the LCR to think that it can attract and organise this
layer merely by relaunching itself as a new formation. Any split on the
left of the PCF or PS, even on a very confused programme, could take the
advantage away from the LCR and the possibility of a new independent
anti-capitalist party.
Gauche Révolutionnaire considers that the situation
is very open. Anger against the capitalist establishment is still
developing. From this could flow a mass strike movement – like in 1995
when Alain Juppé and Jacques Chirac were defeated by a public-sector
strike, despite holding a 450-seat majority in the assembly – or more
isolated and desperate action.
The lack of an alternative has been the main
problem. We campaigned in the parliamentary election on the need to
prepare the resistance to Sarkozy, for a new anti-capitalist workers’
party, and for a genuine socialist alternative. In Rouen, despite the
presence of LO and LCR candidates (who refused any kind of agreement),
we got 405 votes (1.14%), more than LO, LCR and the PCF in the area we
stood in.
Now, youth and workers have to prepare. The
university ‘reform’ and the right to strike will be key issues in the
next months. A 1995 scenario is still possible. That would be a huge
opportunity to make a clear link between the struggles and the
possibility of a new workers’ party, and the necessity of socialism as
the only alternative to capitalism.
Alexandre Rouillard
Gauche Révolutionnaire
|