Comrade Jean-Michel Edwin argues that the left in France was correct to recommend - as it did in its overwhelming majority - a vote for the French ‘Blair’, Ségolène Royal, as the lesser evil, compared to the French ‘Thatcher’, Nicolas Sarkozy.
There is nothing unprincipled per se in choosing the lesser evil and exceptionally we may be forced to do just that because of the weakness of the independent forces of the working class. But I do not believe that the second round of France’s presidential elections was such an occasion.
Firstly, it never looked likely that Royal would be able to beat Sarkozy - the first round results clearly demonstrated that the right could count on far more support than the left, even if every vote of the defeated left candidates had been transferred to her. The likelihood of a Sarkozy victory was not in itself a reason to refuse to support Royal, but the left should have taken this probable outcome into account when drawing up its tactics. In other words, how would a recommendation to vote Royal advance the cause of the working class if she lost?
It was already known that the left’s unconditional support would allow her to move further right - the votes of the Parti Communiste Français and the far left were secure, so Royal was obviously going to concentrate her appeal for votes on the centre and soft right.
Furthermore, this rightwing momentum will now be carried forward into next month’s elections to the national assembly - Royal’s 47% is viewed by the Parti Socialiste leaders as a reasonable result and they will hardly be looking to reposition themselves further to the left. On the contrary, they will claim that a PS government is achievable - so long as workers ‘vote useful’ from the first round and forget about the PCF, Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire and Lutte Ouvrière … In short, the left’s misguided recommendation has helped strengthen the PS right and therefore the establishment as a whole.
Secondly, comrade Edwin’s argument that a Royal administration would be a “government elected ‘by default’, following the defeat of the hard right” does not stand up to examination. Exactly the same case was made for supporting Jacques Chirac against Jean-Marie Le Pen in 2002. It was said that an overwhelming vote “against Le Pen” would leave Chirac ‘without a mandate’ or even make him a ‘prisoner of the left’. What a joke! Because of the nature of bourgeois politics, every government elected relies on a large number of ‘negative’ votes - votes against other parties - but this does not stop them pushing through their own programme.
What can prevent them implementing anti-working class policies is mass mobilisation, and any government - of right or left - must take into account working class combativity. Comrade Edwin’s belief that Royal would be more susceptible than Sarkozy in this regard is simply wrong. The question the left should have asked was: ‘What tactic is most likely to encourage working class combativity?’ An unconditional vote for Royal was never going to achieve that.
What about a boycott, as advocated by one or two small groups? In 2002 an active boycott (not ‘abstention’) of the second round was definitely the most appropriate tactic. Hundreds of thousands had been mobilised onto the streets and could have been won not only to oppose Le Pen, but the whole, undemocratic Fifth Republic system, where the electorate was expected to choose between ‘a fascist and a thief’ who, between them, had only won the support of a quarter of all those entitled to vote. The left should have demanded the cancellation of the second round and sought to promote the fight for a democratic Sixth Republic led by the working class.
In 2007, however, there was no mass mobilisation and it would have been much more difficult to challenge the legitimacy of the first round - especially after the very high turnout. A call for a boycott could be nothing other than a recommendation for passive abstention.
In my opinion, the defeated left candidates should have offered conditional support to Royal. In other words, the PCF, LCR, LO, etc would urge their supporters to vote PS in the second round only if she agreed a set of minimum demands: for example, hands off the 35-hour week, stop the attack on pensions, no more privatisations, for genuine democratisation of French and EU institutions.
Of course, Royal would almost certainly have refused such conditions, in which case the left would have withheld its votes. True, Sarkozy could have won by a bigger majority, but the far left would have been strengthened prior to the legislative elections. More importantly, workers would have been encouraged to fight for their own independent interests and their combativity raised, irrespective of who won.
Peter Manson
South London
Commentaires