The proletariat strikes a blow against liberalism and the leadership of the socialist Party
by Raymond Debord (04 june 2005)
translation : Roger Silverman (Movements for Socialism)
The day after the result of the referendum, a journalist asked Roland Cayrol, director of the opinion poll institute CSA, if what the French meant by their No was "fuck off". He replied: "The French wanted to knock the table over. Things are going badly in the country. There is unemployment, relocation of jobs. The French want to be consulted. This was a kind of May 1968 in the ballot boxes. There was an element of jubilation in the No, a carnival spirit, as against the reasonable side which represented Yes and European construction. There was a kind of joy in saying 'fuck off'."
Up to now the French people have been considered indifferent to European issues. With 59% of the voters reported to have "thought first about the construction of Europe" before putting their ballot papers in the box, this period is now over. Not only was a copy of the constitutional treaty sent to every voter, they actually read it! For several months, works analysing it by unknown authors were bestsellers in the bookshops, selling hundreds of thousands of copies. Debate raged on the internet, with an explosion in the number of visitors to chatrooms and blogs. Above all, debate took place between people at work and within the family. Families were split apart, in an atmosphere reminiscent of such passionate past French debates as the Dreyfus affair or the conflict between public and private education. The crux of the debate boiled down to two questions. The first was the method chosen to draft the constitution: a self-proclaimed "convention" rather than a constituent assembly. The second was the codification of liberal policy, carved in stone in Article III of the treaty. Was the constitution going to allow Europe to compete with the developing countries, or on the contrary to bring social rights down to the lowest in the union? The longer the campaign went on, the more the rate of abstention dropped in favour of No.
For many Yes supporters, this was a vote of submission rather than adherence: "In any case, without a constitution there'll be all kinds of problems and relocation of jobs, so I'd better vote Yes." On the other hand, the No vote was a vote of defiance. 44% of those who voted No did so because they considered that the constitution would increase unemployment, 40% because they wanted to express their disaffection with the current situation, 35% to renegotiate the treaty and 34% because they found the constitution too liberal.
The role of the extreme right was minimal in the campaign, even though its supporters are naturally inclined to vote No. The National Front hardly campaigned at all. The only right-wing leader to mount a mass campaign was Philippe de Villiers, a Catholic tradtionalist. He focussed on the question of Turkey, but in a moderate tone, and repeating most often the arguments of the left: against job relocations, the anti-democratic character of the constitution, etc. In the end, only 19% of the No voters (10% of the total electorate) did so to defend the identity of France, and 18% (9.9% of the total electorate) against the entry of Turkey. Those people of the left who chose to vote Yes so as not to mix their votes with those of the extreme right had obviously been fooled.
The No vote was clearly a vote of revolt, but also one of hope, of an opening to the future. This was a popular vote and a left vote. It was also a vote of protest with regard to the choice made by the leaders of the Socialists and Greens. It is because they felt this movement from below that many leading socialist figures chose to openly defy Francois Hollande.
The left campaign was organised in a very united manner by a front including the Communist Party, trade unionists, the "alternative world" movement, some of the far left, and dissident socialists. About 2000 united committees were set up in the towns, villages, workplaces, etc. The Communist Party was at the heart of the campaign, opening up the platform at their meetings and giving up some of their allocated television broadcast time to their allies: the LCR, dissident socialists, etc. Without holding a meeting, the former Socialist minister Laurent Fabius made several television appearances.
A small network of militants, mainly left Socialists, worked together with supporters of the website www.le-militant.org <http://www.le-militant.org> to express the ongoing movmement form below linking rejection of the treaty with the demand for the resignation of Chirac.
The referendum has recreated the left-right divide in society in spite of the collusion between the Socialist Party, the Greens and the two main right-wing parties the UDF and the UMP. 67% of left sympatisers voted No and 74% of right sympathisers voted Yes. 55% of electors who had voted for Jospin in the presidential elections and 52% of those who had voted for Marnere (Green) voted No.
The No vote was clearly a class vote. 71% of blue-collar workers and 66% of white-collar workers made this choice. Yes only had a majority among executives, the liberal professions and retired people. An important fact is that No had the strongest support among young people from 18 to 29 (62%) although up to now they had been the most "European" of the electorate.
In contrast to the Gaullist tradfition, Chirac has refused to resign after losing the referendum. He has appointed a new government including de Villepin (France's spokesman when it opposed the USA over the Iraq war) but also Sarkozy, a liberal who is also his main rival from the right. Chirac has promised "a social turning-point", a promise likely to be broken by new measures which will reduce public expenditure and put jobs at further risk. In any case the new governemnt is very weak and the left is likely to win the 2007 elections.
The main point is that the "left of the left" has just soundly beaten the right-wing leaders of the Socialist Party. What is at stake now is what happens at the heart of the Socialist Party. Will the No supporters succeed in defeating the present leadership? If so, then the road is open for a new union of the left on an anti-liberal programme and the advent of Fabius as President of the Republic in 2007.
Naturally, this option is likely to run into a number of difficulties: Chirac's social demagogy and the total war threatened by the SP leadership. But history is moving irrevocably towards growing hostility to liberalism in all its forms. Experience teaches us that the movement of the masses is stronger than any bureaucratic apparatus. In this sense all our hopes are possible.
Lire la traduction française de l’article ici
See also