The Political
Consequences
Of The French No Vote
By Peter Schwarz
01 June 2005
World
Socialist Website
The
French voters rejection of the European constitution has thrown
ruling circles in both France and the whole of Europe into a major crisis.
The shocks full effect will only become evident in the coming
weeks and months.
While President
Jacques Chirac, the governing parties, the major opposition parties
and the media employed every available means to secure a yes
vote, a clear majority of 55 percent rejected the constitution. This
vote represented an unambiguous declaration of opposition to the entire
course of European social and political development. Even Chirac was
forced to admit in his initial comment on the result that France had
made a democratic and sovereign decision on
the issue.
Dominique Strauss-Kahn,
leading member of the Socialist Party and advocate of the yes
camp, put the constitutions defeat down to irrational fear
and demagogy. But if there was any fear mongering, it was
on the part of the constitutions supporters. In the face of considerable
popular pressure, they resorted to threats and intimidation.
Foreign Minister
Michel Barnier warned that a no vote would put France out
in the cold and back in second league, while Interior
Minister Dominique de Villepin painted a nightmare scenario of immigrants
flooding the country if the constitutionwith its regulations reinforcing
the EUs perimeter borderswere to fail.
The resounding no
was the result of a broad political mobilisation that developed at an
astonishing pace over the last four weeks. Hundreds of thousands participated
in numerous meetings for and against the constitution. Television discussions
drew audiences of millions. The atmosphere in the country became akin
to the campaign fever accompanying a parliamentary or presidential election.
Voters became convinced they could put a stop to a social and political
development that they opposed.
The wider the political
mobilisation, the less was heard of the far rights dog whistle
issues such as immigration and xenophobia, and the more social and political
issues came to the fore. The neo-liberal and undemocratic character
of the constitution was at the centre of the no campaign.
It was directed not against Europe, but against an anti-social,
reactionary constitution. While the yes camp campaigned
for a strong France, the most popular slogan from the no
camp was For another Europe.
The division between
the camps was along social lines. Three-quarters of blue-collar and
two-thirds of white-collar workers, as well as the majority of small
farmers and rural workers, voted no.
Political fragmentation
With the failure
of the referendum, Frances ruling elite confronts the fragmentation
of its domestic and foreign policy.
Rejection of the
constitution means a decisive personal and political defeat for President
Chirac, the greatest since he took office ten years ago. Replacing the
prime minister will not dispel the crisis. Chirac accepted the resignation
of Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin and appointed his ally Dominique
de Villepin to the post, rejecting his bitterest party rival, UMP (Union
for a Popular Movement) chairman Nicolas Sarkozy, the advocate of a
French Thatcherism. But trench warfare within the government
camp is bound to intensify and its unpopularity amongst voters will
inevitably grow.
However, the greatest
loser in the referendum is neither Chirac nor the UMP but the Socialist
Party, which was deeply split on the issue. The party officially backed
a yes vote, but some leading figures were prominent supporters
of the no camp. Amongst party members, the split is deeper
still, with a majority more decisively against the constitution60
percent voted no in the referendum. A split in the party
is a definite possibility.
The current leadership
team under François Hollande, which owes its political rise to
Lionel Jospin, has severely discredited itself through its fierce advocacy
of the unpopular constitution. Jospin himself, who broke three years
of silence to promote the constitution, has finally put paid to his
reputation as a left-wing socialist.
But opponents of
the constitution within the Socialist Party are too clearly associated
with the right-wing politics of previous socialist governments to be
able to present themselves as a credible alternative. The same applies
to the chairman of the Communist Party, Marie-George Buffet, who was
Minister for Sport in Jospins cabinet. Moreover, the left-wing
socialists are deeply divided among themselves.
The international
character of social democracys decline was underscored by the
participation of numerous social democrats from Germany and Spainincluding
the heads of the German and Spanish governments, Gerhard Schröder
and Jose Luis Zapateroin the campaign in France for the constitution.
In Germany the SPD (German Social Democratic Party) decided to call
early national elections following its eleventh consecutive defeat in
state and local elections.
The crisis of the
French government has developed under unusual circumstances. Political
crises in parliamentary democracies are traditionally defused by the
replacement of the government with the opposition. In this case, both
the ruling parties and the official left opposition have been repudiated,
suffering defeat at the hands of the electorate. Thus one can predict
that the political crisis will inevitably deepen and assume increasingly
malignant forms.
Paralysis in the European Union
The floundering
of the constitution has delivered a terrible blow to the cornerstone
of French strategy for the last 15 years.
Since Jean Monnet
and Maurice Schuman first established the European Coal and Steel Community
in 1950, France, together with Germany, has played the leading role
in the economic integration of Europe. The now defunct constitutional
contract was drawn up by the former French President Valéry Giscard
dEstaing, who headed the European Constitutional Assembly. This
was supposed to be the crowning moment in the process of European unification,
by emulating in the political arena the integration that has been brought
about in the continents economic relations. Europeand thereby
Francewas to be empowered through the constitution to take its
place on the world stage, to play a leading role and confront the United
States on equal terms.
Such plans now lie
in cold storage, and have possibly gone into reverse. On the eve of
the referendum, incumbent president of the European Council, Jean-Claude
Juncker, (Luxemburg) described a possible no as a
catastrophe for France, for Chirac and for the whole world.
Now he is trying
to put on a brave face. Europe will go on and its institutions
will continue to function. We are aware of the difficulties, but we
are confident of finding a way of moving Europe forward again,
runs the joint declaration from Juncker, EU Commission President José
Manuel Barroso and EU Parliament President Josep Borrell after the result
of the French referendum.
A means to move
Europe forward is, however, hard to imagine. A rejection of the constitution
in Hollands referendum today (June 1) is virtually certain, and
in all likelihood Britains Prime Minister Blair will not even
hold the scheduled referendum. The transition of governmental power
in Germany, where the national elections will be brought forward to
next September, threatens to dampen relations between Paris and Berlinuntil
now the twin motors of the European Union. The CDU (Christian Democratic
Union) candidate for chancellor, Angela Merkel, has repeatedly criticised
Schröder, along with Chirac, for his course of conflict with Washington.
An economic and
political crisis is also mounting in the US. The occupation of Iraq
is developing into an inescapable disaster, while domestic debt and
the balance of trade deficit are spiralling out of control. The American
government will invariably seek to resolve its problems by an increasingly
unilateralist policy, involving renewed military interventions and at
the expense of its European rivals.
The paralysis of
the European Union, on the one hand, and increasing pressure from America,
on the other, will also strengthen the tendency towards a go-it-alone
foreign policy and military adventurism in Europe. One option already
widely discussed is the shaping of a German and French-led core Europe
that will free itself from the paralysing influence of the pro-American
British and eastern European states.
This is where the
battle fronts between the supporters and opponents of the constitution
dissolve into one another. One of the most aggressive calls for movement
in this direction has come from a constitution opponent, Jacques Nikonoff,
president of the French section of Attac. In a piece written for Le
Monde that would have won the unqualified approval of General Charles
De Gaulle, Nikonoff criticised the monstrous institutional edifice
of the constitution for aiming to strangle the French-German
dynamic.
Leaving political
niceties aside, the leader of Frances anti-globalisation movement
launched an open attack on Britain for sitting on its emergency
seat in the EU, blocking all initiatives and, above all, orienting
itself across the Atlantic. He also lambasted the three old fascist
dictatorships (Spain, Portugal and Greece), who owed so much to
the EU, constantly received European finance, but
who only regarded the EU as paymaster for their own development
needs and not as a genuine community of nations. Finally, he rounded
on the new EU members from the former Warsaw Pact for orienting towards
the US rather than the EU. When the war in Iraq gave them the
chance to prove their commitment to Europe, they chose the wrong camp.
Nikonoffs
article rose to a hymn of praise to the German-French partnership
and the Benelux countries: This is where youll find
the Unions motor, the motor that is sure to stall in the glutinous
mud (of the constitution) .... Power of a particular kind is required
for an ambitious political project. This is something the Union doesnt
possess.
Laurent Fabius,
from the right wing of the Socialist Party, argued in a similar fashion
in his stand against the constitution. And when it comes to the defence
of French interests such a political approach would undoubtedly find
favour in Jean-Pierre Chevenements Citizens Movement and
the Communist Party, which constantly presents itself as more Gaullist
than the Gaullists.
Political tasks
The rejection of
the constitution has raised important political questions, but it has
not resolved them. The ruling circles will not accept such a defeat
without a struggle. Pressure from the world economy and the growing
confrontation with the US drives them to carry out new attacks against
the working class.
Whereas Chirac hypocritically
expressed understanding for the decision of the voters, other representatives
of the governing parties defiantly maintained their support for the
constitution. François Bayrou, the leader of the liberal UDF,
declared that he was proud to have defended it. He demanded an immediate
and fundamental change of policies.
The head of the
UMP, Nicolas Sarkozy, also interpreted the result of the referendum
as a mandate to carry out a fundamental reform of the country.
His first statement after the results were announced amounted to an
application for the position of head of the French government. If the
crisis keeps intensifying then even a resignation of the presidentChiracs
acknowledged heir-apparent is Sarkozycannot be ruled out.
The most important
advantage still enjoyed by the establishment parties is the absence
of either an independent political orientation or independent party
of the working class. The role of the so-called far-leftfrom
the left wing of the Socialist Party to the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire
and the French Communist Partyis to prevent any development in
this direction. They spread the illusion that the ruling circles could,
under pressure from below, be forced to carry out a fundamentally different
policy and in this way they cling to the left wing of the
bourgeoisie itself.
The LCR is striving
to develop an alliance with the Communist Party, which for its part
seeks an alliance with the left wing of the Socialist Party, which in
turn winks favourably in the direction of the right wing of the party
and to Laurent Fabius. There is no doubt as to the orientation of figures
like Fabius, Henri Emannuelli (SP) or Marie George Buffet (CP) if they
gain political influence. All of them are bourgeois politicians who
defend the French state and the capitalist order.
One recalls the
period in office of François Mitterrand (French Socialist Party),
who made similar left noises in the 1970s until he lurched sharply to
the right in 1982, just one year after his election as president. One
of his prime ministers at the time was Fabius, who today reaches out
to the left opponents of the constitution. Lionel Jospin cultivated
his own left aura until, as head of the French government,
he revealed himself to be a run-of-the-mill capitalist politician.
The democratic rights
and social gains of the working class can only be defended on the basis
of a socialist programme that challenges capitalist property relations.
Only the struggle for the United Socialist States of Europe can overcome
the division of the continent into rival nation states and enable the
utilisation and further development of its enormous wealth and productive
forces in the interest of society as a whole.