08.05.2002

British left and French elections

Socialist Alliance member John Bulaitis defends the 'Vote Chirac' position adopted by the reformist left and the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire

I am currently in France and witnessing at first hand the magnificent mobilisations against the Front National. But I have taken the time to check the websites of the British far left. If anything displays the dogmatism and sectarianism of much of the British far left, it is the position taken in relation to the second round of the elections. The question posed is very simple. Are you in favour of an electoral defeat of Le Pen or not? Yet, reading the articles on France, I find it hard to find straight answers. The Socialist claims that "a strong showing of ballot papers rejecting both Chirac and Le Pen would be a warning of opposition to the capitalist policies which both advocate" (April 26). In other words, the best thing to do is spoil the ballot. Of course, Chirac and Le Pen both represent capitalist policies. What an amazing discovery The Socialist has made! But if the contest had been between Jospin and Le Pen, they too would have also both represented capitalist policies. The point is for the millions who have mobilised in France, Le Pen represents much else besides. Imagine what images his call for 'transit camps' to store immigrants in before they are deported conjures up in a country that saw 'transit camps' set up by the Nazis for the jews and resistance fighters, before they were deported the other form of 'camp' - the death camp. The FN may not be a classical fascist party. But a FN victory would pose a serious threat to the workers' movement, the left, the minorities, women and youth in France. As for Socialist Worker, one scratches one's head to work out what is being advocated. But the interview with their sister organisation strongly implies that an abstention is the best approach (May 4). And, it should be remembered that the SWP's French group supported Lutte Ouvrière in the first round of the elections, against the less sectarian LCR campaign which raised centrally the anti-globalisation struggle. And Lutte Ouvrière is now arguing strongly for a spoilt ballot position. And then there is the CPGB who call for an 'active boycott' - whatever that means. According to the Weekly Worker, the slogan "Votez escro, pas fascho (vote for a crook, not a fascist) "¦ plays into the hands of the ruling class" because "a sweeping victory for Chirac" would be claimed as "a vote of confidence in the current order" (May 2). The truth is, the youth who took to the streets and raised this slogan have a revolutionary instinct a thousand times stronger than our CPGB scribe. It is self-evident that the slogan itself implies no illusions, or support for Chirac. The very fact that hundreds of thousands have been taking to the streets each night, culminating in the historic two-million strong May Day demonstrations, shows it is understood instinctively that the fascists will be defeated by the mass movement and not simply at the ballot box. Otherwise, why take to the streets? Those who argue for a boycott, of whatever form, are in practice suggesting that the result of the second round in terms of votes cast does not matter. But it is only necessary to pose the question as to why this mass movement has developed in the first place? The spark was the electoral success of Le Pen in the election's first round - in other words, the threat of Le Pen winning the second round and becoming president of France. That is why everyone who has taken to the streets understands that the result matters - except of course the hardened sectarians who have sheepishly followed in the wake of the movement. For the youth who spontaneously came out on the streets, who have grown in confidence as the demonstrations have developed, who have triggered the biggest demonstrations since the Liberation, the result is absolutely vital. And, their instinct is correct. If the FN were to receive 25%, 30% or 35%, then inevitably the dynamic behind the party would be strengthened. That would be a defeat. And the youth in France understand that - even if the CPGB, Peter Taaffe and company do not. If the FN were to gain such a vote, the youth and those who have mobilised would be on the retreat. On the other hand, if the NF vote were to go down, then the dynamic of the FN could be checked. Doubts would set in amongst some of its less committed supporters. Those in the mass movement against it would become even more confident. The outlook of those on the demos in Paris was that they were going to vote, not for Chirac, but against Le Pen. In that sense, the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire's position in France, criticised in the Weekly Worker, is not ambiguous but is understood perfectly by all participating in the mass movement, even if not in the Weekly Worker office. The idea that Chirac and his reactionary politics will be strengthened by a crushing defeat for Le Pen is an argument that at best completely misunderstands the position in France, and at worst reveals a haughty contempt for the youth and others who have taken to the streets. In fact the opposite is the case. If a campaign along the lines suggested by the CPGB, and Lutte Ouvrière in France, had some success and many abstained, thus leading to a higher percentage for the NF, then Chirac would feel more confident in carrying out his rightwing agenda. He would probably feel the pressure to orientate even further towards the right to appease NF voters. And the pressure would be on the social movement to hold in check, because the argument would be that, if you don't, there is the NF waiting in the wings. On the other hand, Chirac and his supporters are beginning to realise that they face the problem of 'legitimacy' if elected by 85%-90% of the vote. In that situation, paradoxically, Chirac would be a weakened presidency, elected with a historically low vote for a sitting president in the first round, and with the votes of the left in the second round. Chirac knows that. The movement instinctively understands that, which is why on the May Day demo, many people were already raising the slogan Pour un troisième tour social (for a social third round). Perhaps the politics of abstention make some individuals feel that they have done their revolutionary duty by not voting for a bourgeois candidate. But since when have Marxists been opposed on principle to voting for a bourgeois candidate when tactically it can advance the movement? The British far left is once again demonstrating its sectarian dogmatism, rather than knowing how to engage with the mass movement.