In My VIew

French political ménagerie

History, as it seems, is harsher on the Marxists. And if history is considered a parable of popular dynamics, then it is them, the people who are the harshest judges. In most of central Europe and the Balkans in the years between Wars; or in post-Lenin Soviet Union, once the people found the Marxists floundering, they handed down a justice that robbed the Left the ability to make people dream, their most powerful weapon. First round of French presidential elections has proved that tenet once again.

After the results came in the end of last week, one could say that the Fifth Republic is fraying. While the rightist candidate, Nikolas Sarkozy of the Union for a Popular Movement (UNP) has appealed till now to the basest instincts of race and xenophobia; the representative of the so called Left, Sogolene Royal of the Parti Socialiste (PS) has followed a marginally softer line of jingoistic nationalism. This, in a presidential poll that is considered a milestone for the future of the French republic, has bypassed all the issues that are crucial to the French people.

These issues include what the nature of the French economy would be in the face of an onslaught of the neo-liberal European Union; whether the society of France would be closed to external influences of globalism as opposed to globalisation; and whether French labour would continue to have the protection of the government. On all these issues, ironically the French Left failed to define the issues. Be it the PS or the Parti Communiste Français (PCF) or the Trotskyists have failed to lead the debate and instead were found on the defensive mode, reacting to the attacks of Sarkozy.

This was despite the severe race riots of 2005 that had little to do with ethnicity and more to do with the conditions under which the immigrant labour had to function; or even the huge labour and student demonstrations of 2006. Even then, as now, both the PS and the PCF had shown their flat footedness in providing political leadership to the mass upsurge of discontent. As a result, the political class seemed as much discredited then, as now.

Having said that, one has to acknowledge that the French are civilised people. Unlike the US electorate in 2004, they have not sought to douse their insecurities by externalising their problems and blaming the world for their woes. They have instead sought to grasp the nettle of the issues afflicting them and seek to deal with them in a manner they know best – by pitting them in ideological terms and taking a view from each side.

At the end, if France chooses to join in favour of the finance capital-driven globalisation’s discourse of the ‘New,’ they would do so knowing that Capitalism is not a halfway house where you can be one of the richest country in the world without the exploitation of labour. This indeed is the contradiction of social democracy, ever since it emerged on the horizon.

So the ‘New’ policies of Sarkozy or Royal would clearly have to choose from the smorgasbord of neoliberal policy prescriptions that could remove many of the safety features protecting labour in France; or even the welfare state. And rightly so, because France would have to move forward from the logjam of the mid-2000s to maintain its leadership position in the world.

But the real story is how the Left is losing the battle for the heart of Europe. Be it the New Left or the old Left, the Marxists have failed to join the discursive process of the ‘New’ essentially because they have been to amoral in power. Take the case of France itself, when Francois Mitterand became the president of the country in 1981 he had to form his government with the support of the French communists. But the latter were found to be partners in his strategy of deciding against his mandate, when he embraced neoliberalism with great gusto.

Even as late as 2006, they failed to take a position when a substantial section of the French were out on the streets agitating against neoliberal onslaught on the people’s lifestyles; or even when the French voted ‘Non’ for a more integrated European Union. To the people, the Left seemed incapable of providing an alternate vision that could challenge the growing hegemony of global capital; for they seemed too convinced that the progress of capital-driven globalisation was irreversible.

So at the end, the people have voted with their feet. They left the Left block in droves. For the people of France as in other parts of the world, obviously it is not enough to enjoy the status quo of safe livelihood, but for the increasing numbers of young people thronging the work life, it is important to have new opportunities. Those opportunities are not being found in the traditional capitalist model. So they want change. But they do not know where to go. And the Left is not showing the path. It is indeed ironic that a crisis of Capital is sucking the Left in its vortex.

India in the coming decades could face some of the same problems, unless of course the country and its people prepare to stave off the eventuality.

Pinaki Bhattacharya, currently located in Kolkata, is a Special Correspondent with the Mathrubhumi, Kerala. He writes on Strategic Security issues. He can be contacted at pianki63@dataone.in