France: Following the threat of National Rally - Towards a New Popular Front government

Source: Braveheart

Lisbeth Latham

In the second round of the French National Assembly elections on July 7, in the face of fears that the far-right National Rally and its allies would win government outright, the New Popular Front won the largest share of seats. A key factor in this outcome was the decision by the majority of parties to limit the number of three or four-way contests that included RN, to give voters a clear choice between the RN and the alternative parties. However, the success of the NPF in the elections opens up new questions and challenges for the NPF and its component units regarding the formation of the next French government and how to relate to both this government and the presidency of Macron’s remaining three years in office.

You will find more infographics at Statista, 

 

RN candidates, who had reached the second round in 444 constituencies, received 37.03% of votes cast in the second round totaling 10, 110, 013 votes. Despite this, they won 143 seats (up 54 from their total in the 2022 elections) far short of the 289 seats required for a victory. While RN’s performance is being described as a stunning defeat, it represents a significant and continued advance for the party with nearly two-fifths of the electorate backing the far-right, and it was only defeated partly by efforts for France’s parties of the left and centre to make tactical voting against RN candidates easier.

A factor in limiting RN gains was the decision by both NFP and the pro-Macron coalition Ensemble to withdraw their candidates from three-way contests if they were the third candidate. Consequently, 216 candidates withdrew from the second round, 134 backed by the NFP and 82 from Ensemble.

Consequently, both NFP’s and Ensemble’s votes in the second round are distorted and do not accurately reflect their level of support. The NFP received 25.81% of the vote and won 180 seats (up 49 on 2022). Ensemble received 24.53% of the vote and won 163 seats. The final major block is the remnants of the traditional centre-right, The Republicans, whose vote collapsed to 5.41% in the second round, winning 66 seats, down 9 seats from 2022.

No block is an easy position to form a majority government. For a majority government to be formed, at least two electoral blocks, or significant parts of them, would need to unite. While there will be pressure from French capital for this to occur, most notably Ensemble, The Republicans, and potentially some or all of the centre-left parties, most notably the Socialist Party, within the NFP. This is a threat that John Mullen points out “The right-wing majority, aided by a strong media campaign, would prefer a coalition government, including parts of the left and right: including everyone, in fact, except the [France Insoumise] FI and RN.” Although it is unclear that a working majority would be able to be constructed by these groups. Alternatively, Romain Geoffroy, Adrien Sénécat and Maxime Vaudano argue other options would be a minority government appointed by Macron or a "technical government" of experts, which is common in countries such as Italy, and reliant on Macron’s ability, under cl 49.3 of the French Constitution, to push through laws without having a vote in parliament as long as there is not a no-confidence vote within the National Assembly. Unlike in some countries where no clear majority government, the French Constitution prevents there being a further election until those scheduled for 2025. In the wake of the election results Macron has asked the current prime minister, Gabriel Attal, to remain in place for the time being.

Faced with the likelihood of a minority government being formed the parties of the NFP, including the PS, are demanding that Macron “must immediately turn to the New Popular Front to enable it to form a government”. This government would have FI leader Clémence Guetté as prime minister. In the statement, the NFP argues:

“The results of the first and second rounds of the legislative elections confirm the failure of Macron's party. The French people put the New Popular Front and its program in the lead and thus prevented the victory of the extreme right, which was nevertheless presented as a given three weeks ago.

“This is the result of a tremendous popular mobilization that we want to salute and of the responsibility of all the voters who voted to express their rejection of the extreme right. It led to a record turnout. Even without an absolute majority, it gives us an immense responsibility.

“The New Popular Front is without a doubt the leading force in the new National Assembly. Following the republican custom in times of cohabitation [where the government is a different party to that of the President], it is up to the President of the Republic to turn now to the New Popular Front to enable it to form a government. If the President of the Republic persisted in ignoring the result of Sunday's election, this would be a betrayal of the spirit of our constitution and a democratic coup that we would oppose with all our strength.”

The need for workers and popular forces in France to mobilise both in support of the formation of not only an NFP government, but in support of the implementation of the NFP’s radical program, is clear. As the New Anti-Capitalist Party-The Anti-Capitalist put in their statement on July 9 “For all this, our social camp must remain united to fight, debate, organise and build a left of combat and rupture, bringing social progress, with a view to a revolutionary transformation of society, freed from exploitation and oppression”. This call for action in support and defence of the NFP is echoed in statements of France’s militant union confederations, which are part of the NFP, most notably the General Confederation of Labour and the Trade Union Solidarity.

Should Macron refuse to appoint an NFP government, any current mass mobilisations will have an important impact in resisting and pressuring any new government.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.

Read more...

France: Responses to the spectre of a National Rally government

Lisbeth Latham

As expected the far-right National Rally (NR) and its allies emerged as the largest party in the first round of the French elections - with the potential to form government in the wake of the second round of elections on July 7. Demonstrating the extent to which the elections are seen as an existential crisis in French life, with a turnout of 66.71%, the highest turnout since the 1997 elections. In response, the coalitions of both the left, centre, and centre-right have moved to try to limit the performance of NR by taking a strategic approach to the second round to limit NR’s final seat tally. While such an approach is important, it poses significant risks for the left parties.

Candidates of RN and its allies the Union of the Far-Right (UXD) received 33.21% of the vote, the highest vote in the history of RN or its predecessor the National Front. This vote was down on the peak of RN’s support in opinion polls leading up to the elections. Based on this vote, candidates of the RN and UXN were elected in 38 constituencies and qualified for the second round in 444 constituencies. Which would allow them to potentially win a majority of seats and form government.

The New Popular Front (NFP) emerged as the second-largest party receiving 28.22% and winning 32 constituencies outright, with 415 candidates advancing to the second round. While this was consistent with NFP’s performance in opinion polls, it reflected a significant advance over the constituent parties’ performance in the 2022 elections - where New Ecological and Social People’s Union totaled 26% of the vote.

In response to this performance the parties of the left have been clear that the key threat is RN, and have sought to limit the number of RN candidates that will be elected in the second round. "Our guideline is simple and clear: not a single more vote for the National Rally," said France Unbowed (FI) leader Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

If no candidate reaches 50% in the first round, the top two contenders automatically qualify for the second round, as well as all those with 12.5% of registered voters. In the run-off, whoever wins the most votes take the constituency. RN candidates have qualified for run-off elections in 298 constituencies in which three or more parties have qualified.

Based on this Raphaël Glucksmann, who headed the Socialist party’s candidates in the European elections last month, called for all the candidates who finished third in the first-round to withdraw in order to forge a united barrier against the far right.

“Are we ready to hand over our country – the country of Victor Hugo, of Voltaire, of Rabelais – to the Le Pen family?

“That’s the only question that matters. It’s become a referendum and that’s why we’re asking all the third-place candidates to withdraw immediately, and why we’re asking people to vote, unambiguously and unhesitatingly, for democratic republicans whether they be on the left or the right, in order to stop the National Rally. We have seven days to avoid a catastrophe the likes of which France has never known in its history.”

Supporters of President Emmanuel Macron, who received 21.28% of the vote, have generally endorsed withdrawing candidates where they are the third candidate in a run-off. However, they have not been consistent in doing so. With leaders opposing withdrawing where the first or second candidate is from Melenchon’s FI, on the basis that, as Bruno Le Maire, France’s Finance Minister said “For me, France Unbowed is a danger for the nation, just as the National Rally is a danger for the Republic”. Despite this 224 candidates have withdrawn for the second round, reducing the number of four-way races from five to 2, and the number of three-way races from 306 to 89. The number of two candidate races has increased from 190 to 409. RN will be pitted against the NFP in 149 of these, while 134 elections will see RN contenders run against candidates from Macron's supporters.

The withdrawal of the third candidates substantially reduces the chances of RN being able to form a government. This could create a situation where the Macronists are reliant on votes of either RN or the parties of NFP. This creates a significant risk of the left, particularly with the threat of the far-right, being pressured to support either directly or indirectly a government of “republican unity”, an eventuality that can only further strengthen RN’s claims of being the party against the failings of the political mainstream elite.

In this context, the key will not just be what happens in the elections on July 7, but what happens in the streets after. As the National Confederal Committee of the General Confederation of Labour (CGT) said in a July 1 statement, “Nothing is written. The CGT will do everything to prevent the worst and win social and environmental progress. Through mobilization in the streets and at the ballot box, the world of work can and must win!”

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.

Read more...

France: New Poplur Front challenges the far-right

Lisbeth Latham

In the wake of the far-right National Rally (RN) winning the largest share of votes in France for the European Elections on June 9. French President Emmanuel Macron announced the dissolution of the French General Assembly with new elections to be held on June 30, with run-off elections to be held on July 7. The announcements have sparked real fears that RN could form a government. However, in the face of this threat, France’s left and progressive forces are seeking to fight back both on the street and through the formation of a New Popular Front (NFP). This development has generated both hopes for the left and fears for business that the snap elections could usher in a united left government.

In the European Parliament elections, like far-right parties across Europe but most notably in Germany and Austria, the RN’s vote surged to 31.37% or 7.76 million votes. This result was a substantially improved performance in comparison with RN’s performance in the 2022 National Assembly elections (18.7%) and the Front National (RN’s name at the time) in the 2019 European elections (23.3%). The substantial growth in RN’s vote, along with the fall in votes of parties that support President Macron which collapsed from 22.42% (2019) to 14.52% (2024). Raising fears that RN would be in a strong position to win both the 2024 presidential and national assembly elections.

revitalisinglabour@gmail.com

Map showing the political alignment with the highest vote in different localities across France on June 9 - Brown being Far-Right

In response to the poor performance of his supporters in the June 9 elections, Macron announced the dissolution of the National Assembly with the first round of new elections to be held on June 30. In announcing the dissolution, Macron said “France needs a clear majority in serenity and harmony”, a reference to the difficulty that Macron has faced with his supporters not winning a clear majority in the National Assembly in the 2022 election

Given the very different momentums between the far-right and the parties of the centre. RN and its leader Jordan Bardella are seen as being in a strong position to win a majority and form government. Indeed, Bardella has repeatedly said that the RN would only form government in its own right rather than build coalitions with other parties post the elections.

This possibility has led to significant speculation as to Macron’s motivation in taking a risk in allowing RN to form a government. One is to place pressure on the traditional Gaullist right-wing parties, most notably the Republicans, to enter into a coalition with Macron’s Rennaisance to form a government to avoid the threat of RN, or that should RN form a government that it would be in a situation of cohabitation with Macron’s presidency, which would limit the ability of an RN government to implement its agenda, and Macron potentially still able to push through legislation without reference to the national assembly via cl 49.3 of the French constitution which allows the president to declare legislation passed unless there is a vote of no confidence in the national assembly. This would require RN not only to have the largest bloc but a viable majority in the Assembly. Supporters of Macron’s approach hope that this frustration of RN’s agenda would result in dissatisfaction amongst their voters, positioning Macron and his supporters to then win the 2027 elections.

While this approach has been seen as a potentially risky but brilliant gamble the real potential risks are not going to be felt by Macron, but by the broader French population, particularly the working and popular classes and France’s marginalised communities who have historically been the target of RN’s agenda. This reality reflects the deeply cynical character of the decision to dissolve the National Assembly.

In the wake of the dissolution of the National Assembly, Éric Ciotti, the head of the Republicans has made it clear that he is willing to consider entering a coalition with not just RN, but also France’s second far-right party Reconquest which received 5.46% of the vote. This announcement resulted in an outcry within the Republicans and a move by the party’s leadership on June 12 to expel Ciotti from the Party - a move that the Paris Judicial Court overturned on June 15. On June 17, Ciotti announced that he would lead a list of 62 candidates from The Republicans in alliance with RN.

Despite Ciotti’s actions the leadership of Reconquest has refused to enter the alliance. Marion Maréchal, who was elected to the European Parliament for the party, and the niece of FN Presidential candidate Marine Le Pen, and the granddaughter of the National Front founder and long-time leader Jean-Marie Le Pen, led the negotiations with RN on behalf of Reconquest. However, when these broke down, she criticised party leader Éric Zemmourare accusing im of making too many demands, and announcing she would support the joint list between RN and Ciotti. In response Maréchal was expelled from Reconquest on June 13. Reconquest is standing their own list of candidates, but perfomance in opinion polls has collapsed to between 1-2%.

In the face of the European Election results and the dissolving of the National Assembly, there have been two linked responses from France’s left parties and broader social movements. The call for a united electoral alliance to attempt to achieve the best possible electoral outcome for the left and in parallel calls for popular mobilisations against both the dissolution of the National Assembly and the threat from the far-right.

On June 10, a call was issued for the formation of NFP to “carry a program of social and ecological ruptures to build an alternative to Emmanuel Macron and combat the racist project of the far right”. There were 11 initial signatory organisations including Rebellious France (FI), the Socialist Party (PS), the Ecologists, and the French Communist Party (PCF). While individual leaders of the PS initially rebuffed the call, this reluctance had changed by June 14, with Raphaël Glucksmann, the leader of the PS’s European Parliamentary elections ticket announcing his support. A contributing factor to this decision would have been the announcement by former president François Hollande, who had historically been close to Macron and had endorsed Macron’s previous presidential election campaigns, that he was supporting the NFP. Hollande has been confirmed as the candidate for the constituency he represented for 22 years prior to his election to the presidency in 2012.

The FNP’s agreed platform for the election includes:

• the abolition of Article 49.3 of the French Constitution;
• the introduction of proportional representation for elections to the National Assembly;
• organising a constituent assembly to prepare a new constitution for France, moving from the current Fifth Republic to the new Sixth Republic;
• supporting a retirement age of 60 and the repeal of the 2023 French pension reform law;
• introducing paid menstruation leave;
•  a 14% increase in the minimum wage;
• re-introduction of the solidarity tax on wealth that had been abolished in 2017;
• introducing a new tax on excess profits;
• increasing the Generalised Social Contribution paid by the richest taxpayers;
• free school lunches and supplies;
• abolition the Parcoursup University Admissions system - which limits the number of university places for high school leavers;
• supporting military aid to Ukraine, while committing to no direct French military intervention;
• recognising the State of Palestine;
• enforcing an arms embargo against Israel;
• introducing gender self-identification for trans people;
• abolition of universal national service

The announcement of the formation of the NFP has given significant hope to the French electorate with the NFP receiving between 26-29% support in national polls. This is close to maintaining the combined results that the NFP’s constituent parts received in the European Election of 31.58%. This consolidation of support makes it much more likely that candidates of the NFP will either be directly elected or reach the second round (when no candidate in the constituency achieves a majority of the vote. Support in polls remains consistently below the results for the RN’s polling of between 29.5-36%. The support for the NFP has given rise to concerned speculation in France’s mainstream media regarding the prospect of a NFP government, particularly one in which the FI’s leader, Jean-Luc Mélenchon would be prime-minister. With open speculation as to the willingness of French capital to support a RN government. Hoping to curry this support RN has announced that it would back away from promises to lower France’s taxes on fuel, power, and the broader value added tax.

The urgency of the situation has seen the far-left New Anti-Capitalist Party-Anti-Capitalist (the NPA split in 2023, the other component is the NPA-Revolutionary) announce that it would participate in the NFP. Whilst the NPA-Anti-Capitalist is small, in several constituencies, particularly around Bourdeux, where it has local councillors, it could have played a role in diffusing the left vote. The NPA-Anti-Capitalist’s participation in the NFP is significant as it and its precursors have, whilst willing to participate in negotiations around the formation of united electoral efforts, stood apart from left-electoral fronts to a large extent since 2002. This refusal has been primarily based on a desire for the formations to adopt a clear position going into elections that it would reject a governmental alliance with the PS due to the PS’s record of social liberalism in government, that is neoliberalism with a social democratic face. In announcing their participation in the NFP, the NPA - Anti-Capitalist observed “in a few days, all the left-wing political forces, unions, associations and movements working on environmental, anti-racist, feminist and LGBT+ struggles, grouped around the New Popular Front. In a few days, it is indeed our social camp, that of the exploited and oppressed, which has reconstituted itself as a political subject to defend its rights”.

The NPA-Anti-Capitalist is not alone in adding to the supporters of the NFP. There are now some 53 parties, five union confederations, and numerous social movement organistations that have joined and supporting the front.

Since June 16 there have regular protests across France called by FNP and other left and progressive social and political forces. Whilst not at the level of mass mobilisation as has been seen in France’s past they are significant. The interior ministry estimated national participation in protests across France on June 16 at 250, 000, whilst the General Confederation of Labour put participation at 640, 000 with estimates of Paris protest participation being 72, 000 and 250, 000 respectively. The details of the 117 actions against the RN across France this week can be found here.

Irrespective of the outcome of the first and second rounds of the elections. The capacity and willingness of France’s left and popular movements to build on these mobilisations play a central role. In the lead-up to the second round of elections, this will include pressuring the parties of the centre and right to work against the election RN candidates. In the wake of the second round opposing any efforts to build a coalition with RN to form government. Finally in the face of whatever government is formed to struggle for the interests of working and popular classes and marginalised communities whether against a government of the far-right, centre, or in holding the parties of the left to the NFP program.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at to let me know.

Read more...

France: The New People’s Ecological and Social Union and the political independence of the far-left

Launch of NUPES, source: www.melechon.fr

Lisbeth Latham

On May 5, the National Council of the Parti Socialiste (PS) announced that it had agreed to participate in a joint election ticket with much of France’s electoral left, via the formation of the New People's Ecologist and Social Union (NUPES) in the June legislative elections. NUPES is made up of the France Insoumise, the PS, the Parti Communiste (PCF), Europe Ecologie Les Vertes (The Greens), Génération.s (the party founded by Benoît Hamon, the PS 2017 presidential candidate in the wake of the 2017 legislative elections), and other smaller formations around these larger groups. The emergence of this electoral union follows Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s strong performance in the first round of the presidential elections. Polls suggest the bloc could emerge as either the opposition to Macron’s parliamentary supporters or if the momentum continues to build that they could be in a position to form a government following the second round. As much as this is seen as the most united the French left has been, the French far-left in the form of the New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) and Workers Struggle (LO) remain aloof, with some raising concerns that this could undermine the ability of NUPES to reach the second round in some constituencies. In this piece, I will look at why this aloofness is a consistent position for the NPA and LO, and, at least in the case of the NPA, is not simply a reflection sectarian on the NPA’s part but instead, a continuity of the party’s position in the ongoing debate within France left on the what political basis to build a united left to challenge neoliberalism.

Mélenchon's performance in the presidential election first round
Mélenchon won 21.95% of the vote in the first round, coming in third behind Marcron (27.85%) and Le Pen (23.15%). This built on his performance in 2017 (19.6%) and 2012 (11.1%) and was the highest vote for a candidate to the left of social democracy ever (Jacques Duclos received 21.27% of the vote for the PCF in the 1969 election). However, it was in the context of a continuation of the historically low vote for the left of centre (left candidates totalled 27.31% of the vote in 2012, compared with a total vote of 43.75% in the first round of the 2012 elections).

At the launch of the NUPES’ election campaign on May 7, Mélenchon told the crowd:

“It is the first time in twenty-five years that a general agreement has been reached between all the forces of the traditional left, environmentalists and the youngest, the “rebellious”

“We had to lose the thread and have to weave it again so that, under our responsibility, we succeeded.

“What had not been done either by the leftist cartels, or by the Popular Front, or by May 68, or by the common program, we did it”

Basis of unity
The initiative to build a common left electoral block was initiated by France Insoumise reaching out to all left parties. The negotiations between left groups has given rise to essentially a unity platform for the election. This includes (the full accord is available here:

• Increasing the minimum wage to 1,400 euros net (currently 1302); 
• The creation of a youth autonomy allowance; 
• The right to retire at age 60 for all; 
• Freezing the prices of basic necessities; 
• The strengthening and generalization of employee representation on boards of directors; 
• The repeal of the El Khomri Law and other counter-reforms of the Labour Code; 
• The affirmation of an imperative of ecological justice; 
• The development of public services, the refusal of their privatization or their opening up to competition, the creation of a public service for early childhood and support for old age; 
• The implementation of fairer taxation with, in particular, the restoration of the ISF and the repeal of the flat tax; The repeal of security laws that infringe on our individual freedoms; 
• Real equality in the overseas territories, the right to water and the promotion of the Overseas Territories as the outposts of the ecological and solidarity bifurcation; 
• The adoption of a housing shield in order to limit the share of income devoted to housing, in particular by controlling rents downwards throughout the territory and the production of social housing;

Building momentum and hope
Both Mélenchon’s performance, and the emergence of the NUPES, have given rise to hope that will translate into the possibility of building a substantially bigger united left vote - that will at the very least increase the capacity of NUPES candidates to qualify for the second round and potentially win seats - including increasing the capacity of its constituents parts to increase their number of seats. The coalition currently holds 42 out of 577 seats in the National Assembly, but if their vote was consolidated they could be in a position to be the main opposition voice to Macron and his Ensemble! (not to be mistaken for Ensemble which is a far-left grouping within FI) if it forms government, or as some are hopeful based on initial polling the possibility of NUPES forming a government with Melenchon as prime minister and thus side-line Macron as president. A Radio France Internationale report that a recent Ipsos poll showed “56 per cent of voters wanted Macron to lose the legislative and go into a "cohabitation" with the left, while 57 per cent supported the left uniting to field joint candidates”. More recent polls have suggested that NUPES could receive the largest vote in the first round, how this would translate into seats in the Nationally Assembly would be heavily dependent on how the voters who back eliminated candidates in the first round allocate their votes in the second.

LO and NPA aloof
Much of the focus on parties that are standing apart from NUPES has focused on far-left parties Workers Struggle (LO) and the New Anticapitalist Party (NPA), although they are by no means the only forces standing apart with a number of PS candidates who are not in the seats that were allocated to the PS under the NUPES agreement announcing they will still stand. This focus on both LO and the NPA is primarily aimed at casting their refusal to join as being a consequence of them simply being sectarian Trotskyist forces. While this may the case with LO, who in response to the NPA’s request for discussions regarding the legislative elections, noted the NPA were involved in the discussions regarding the formation of NUPES saying:

“You present yourself as "the left of the left" with the project of "rebuilding a real left" to surf both on the disappointment of the government left and on unitary aspirations. We seek to build a revolutionary communist workers' party, totally independent of the reformist leaderships.”

These criticisms do not accurately reflect the orientation of the NPA to the process, or its criticisms, at least initially, of the new formation. The NPA was willing to meet with the FI leadership regarding joining what would become NUPES. With the NPA indicating in a statement on April 24, that they would have been willing to participate in a joint slate based on the proposed common platform - however, their hesitancy to participate was framed on the basis of who else Mélenchon and FI were willing to include, most notably the PS, their focus on securing Mélenchon the prime ministership rather than NPA’s focus on building extra-parliamentary power via the elections, a power which would be necessary regardless of whether NUPES are able to form a government. With the adherence of the PS to NUPES, the NPA ruled out participation in the coalition, as Philippe Poutou, NPA presidential candidate, said, “the NPA understood that in the end, its presence was not really desired by La France Insoumise”.

In a statement issued by the NPA national political council on May 5, they declared their orientation to NUPES candidates 

“In any case, we will call for a vote and support, including actively, the left-wing candidates of the NUPES, and we will not stand candidates against them. In other constituencies, against candidates labelled NUPES who embody a continuity with social liberalism, the NPA will seek, where the conditions are met, to give voice to an alternative, though unitive candidates, from the workplaces and working-class neighbourhoods, representing a fighting left, independent of institutions and social liberalism.”

The NPA has subsequently announced that it will stand 10 candidates formally as the NPA, which has resulted in public criticism from the “Spark” faction within the party, who declared on May 26, that its members would only support direct candidates of the NPA or LO, and criticised the NPA’s leadership of maintaining illusions in NUPES.

A break with social liberalism?
The NPA drawing a hardline regarding the participation of the PS in NUPES should come as no surprise. This is not just about the reality of the PS government from 2012 in refusing to reverse the Sarkozy’s 2010 increase of the pension age, which is now a central aspect of the coalition’s platform, or the significant attacks on workers seen in the El Khomri law (which NUPES pledges to overturn) that were passed in 2016. The NPA, and its precursor the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR), have had as its principal position for joining any joint electoral project, running through the discussion around both a united candidate of the left (2007) and the creation of the Left Front (2010) and all subsequent unity projects, which has been complete political independence from social liberalism in the form of the PS. The NPA/LCR has seen the willingness, particularly of the PCF, to enter into governments with the PS that have carried out attacks on social spending and workers’ rights as a key factor contributing not only to the collapse of the PS’s vote but to the position of parties to the left of the PS, particularly the PCF an issue that would come into sharp relief if either NUPES are the primary opposition party, but even more so if they were to form government reliant on the vote of PS deputies.

Prior to the PS’s national council meeting, over 1000 PS members signed an open letter against participation in NUPES, and historic leaders, such as former President François Hollande, have spoken against the union, arguing it is a “betrayal of his legacy”, which is undoubtedly the case. In response to the decision by the PS to join NUPES Carole Delopes, the president of the Occitaine region, issued a call to rally all those PS members who are opposed to the "liquidation of the party". Sections of the right have also called on the PS to run instead with them. All of this will present ongoing pressure not only on the PS electorate but also on PS deputies once elected. A key way this resistance was overcome has been both the PS and EELV being offered substantially more constituencies to stand in, particularly winnable constituencies than they would have been entitled to under initial proposals based on a proportional distribution of constituencies based on the component party’s performance in the presidential elections.

The problem of abstentionism in the working class
The refusal of LO and the NPA to join NUPES and instead run their own candidates has raised concerns that this might result in some NUPES candidates not qualifying for the second round - interestingly the role of anti-NUPES PS candidates is not being raised in these same discussions. While this may be the case in some constituencies where LO and/or the NPA might poll well, the reality is that both parties' electoral base is small - both polling less than 1% nationally. Also, because of the relatively small size, there would be no guarantee that all those who would vote for these far-left parties would follow them if they were to join NUPES - at least a section of the voters being protests against the system rather than party loyalty. More importantly, in concentrating on the potential spoiler role that LO or the NPA might play in the first round, commentators are ignoring the much bigger challenge for the left - which is to substantially eat into what is currently one of the largest voting blocs in the French working class … those who abstain from the elections entirely. This bloc, both those who refused to vote, or spoiled their vote, constituted 28.51% of the vote in the first round of the presidential elections. Shifting a solid proportion of these voters would have a significant impact on NUPES performance, far more than the less than half million votes that LO and the NPA received in the presidential elections.

Whatever the outcome of the legislative elections on June 12 and 19, the real test for France’s left will come following the elections. Either in building a consistent opposition to Macron as an opposition bloc in both the parliament and in the streets, or if results deliver a left government, the challenge of attempting to change France, which will face opposition not only from the right internationally and in France, but also, rising tensions in perspective within the left itself.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 

This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.

Read more...

Endurance Games: Reassessing the mass strike based on recent experiences in France

Joint worker and student protest against the First Employment Contract in Rennes April 4 2006

Lisbeth Latham

Dwindling rates of industrial action - particularly in advanced capitalist countries- are often cited as evidence of the labour movement’s global decline. Yet the value of industrial action, and particularly mass strikes, are often grossly oversimplified. ‘If we strike, we will win’ may galvanise workers temporarily, but it belies the complex nature of social movements, where a willingness to struggle is only part of the formula necessary for victory. The complexity of this reality can be seen in the experiences of the contemporary French labour movement. In comparison to movements in other advanced capitalist countries, the French movement is often seen as incredibly militant and powerful. Yet, since the global financial crisis in 2008, it has suffered a series of defeats and has found it increasingly difficult to mobilise to the same extent as before. This is not to say that the French movement is any less heroic than it was in the past, but that the balance of class forces and the confidence of the French popular classes has declined. This has exposed limitations in the mass strike as an industrial tactic when it is not paired with a broader perspective of victory; winning requires not only mass involvement but also a determination to maintain struggle at times in the face of defeat.

The Mass Strike
One of the most influential works on strikes is The Mass Strike, the Political Party and the Trade Unions written by Rosa Luxemburg in 1906[1]. She sought to explore the experiences of Russia's failed 1905 revolution and draw lessons for the broader European social democratic movement. Prior to the pamphlet’s publication, social democracy had been highly critical of mass strikes, seeing them as an anarchist fantasy, as Luxemburg put it

“the theory of the general strike as a means of inaugurating the social revolution, in contradistinction to the daily political struggle of the working-class – and exhausts itself in the following simple dilemma: either the proletariat as a whole are not yet in possession of the powerful organisation and financial resources required, in which case they cannot carry through the general strike; or they are already sufficiently well organised, in which case they do not need the general strike”[2]

Contrary to this view Luxemburg argued:

“the mass strike in Russia has been realised not as means of evading the political struggle of the working-class, and especially of parliamentarism, not as a means of jumping suddenly into the social revolution by means of a theatrical coup, but as a means, firstly, of creating for the proletariat the conditions of the daily political struggle and especially of parliamentarism. The revolutionary struggle in Russia, in which mass strikes are the most important weapon, is, by the working people, and above all by the proletariat, conducted for those political rights and conditions whose necessity and importance in the struggle for the emancipation of the working-class”[3].

The subsequent role of mass strike movements in creating legitimation crises for the capitalist class, blunting their offensive, and creating the impetus for revolutions has vindicated Luxemburg’s position[4]. At the same time mass strikes, like other tactics, have their limitations and even large mass strikes, as demonstrated by Russia in 1905, do not guarantee the successful achievement of a movement’s objectives.

The recent movements in France in defence of pensions and against labour market reforms are important experiences in demonstrating both the strengths and weaknesses of the mass strike as a political tactic.

Leading into the global financial crisis the French working class had achieved a series of victories against government attacks. Most notably: 

• the strike wave against attacks on the public sector attacks in 1995 
• the movement leading up to the defeat of the referendum on endorsing the Lisbon treaty in 2005; and
• the mass movement lead by students against the contrat première embauche (First Employment Contact - CPE) legislation in 2006[5]

At the same time the French organised left was in a process of breakdown and realignment. The Parti Communiste Francais (PCF) , once the hegemonic force on the French left saw its vote in presidential elections fall from 15.35% % in 1981 to 3.37% in 2002. As its old red-belt strongholds became locations of strength for the Front Nationale. deindustrialisation under successive Parti Socialiste (PS) -with the PCF as a minority partner- shattered France’s traditional heavy industrial areas[7]. The impact on the working class in these areas was devastating. Consequently, the PCF’s parliamentary representation became increasingly dependent on a non-aggression pact with the PS, who did not run candidates against sitting PCF MPs. This dependent relationship between the PCF and the PS was to become a key point of conflict in discussions regarding joint far-left candidates, with the Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire (LCR) and subsequently the Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste setting down a priori independence from the PS as a key basis for any discussions about united left electoral tickets[8].

It was not just the PCF who was negatively impacted; the PS suffered the indignity of running third in the 2002 presidential elections behind Jacques Chirac and Front Nationale’s (National Front - FN) Jean-Marie Le Pen[9]. Whilst some blamed this embarrassment on the shock results of the Trotskyist LCR (4.25%) and Lutte Ouvrière (5.72%) candidates, it still posed the question of why people weren’t voting for the PS. It also failed to explain why workers were voting for small far-left parties instead, or even abstaining from voting at all. This put the left in the position of having to respond to a presidential run-off between the right and the far-right - an unenviable position which was repeated in 2017 with the runoff between Macron and Marine Le Pen.

2009 Post GFC Movement
Triggered by the mass defaulting of subprime mortgages in the US economy and exacerbated by the failure of the mortgage backed securities which underwrote the loans, the GFC of 2007-2008 spread like an infection through the global financial sector. Yet as governments scrambled to bailout high finance, they also sought to shift the cost onto working people.[10]

In France this response was met with mass resistance. The intersyndicale (an informal alliance of union confederations at a national level) called for mass mobilisations against the policies of Sarkozy and the Fillon government. Their demands included: Increases in the minimum wage and payments to the unemployed and pensioners; Increased social spending on public housing; Action to reduce job losses including bans on redundancies at profitable companies; Reversal of the tax cuts given to the rich at the start of the crisis; Reversal of job losses and restructuring of the public sector[11]

The intersyndicale achieved a series of mass mobilisations throughout 2009, the largest of which was the general strike of March 19 which drew over 3 million people[12]. Despite these mobilisations the coalition was unable to force any real concessions from the government and, as they progressed, the mobilisations lost impetus.

This development was not a surprise to all the union leaderships. One of France’s most militant union confederations, the openly anti-capitalist Solidaires, consistently argued for a need to go beyond individual days of mobilisation. Solidaires predicted that, however successful, individual days of mobilisation alone would not be enough to steer the government from its well-worn course of protecting capital at the expense of working people. Instead, Solidaires argued for the need to build towards a renewable general strike[13]. As evidence of the effectiveness of this approach they pointed to the successful strikes by workers in the French colonies of Martinique and Guadeloupe from January to March of that year. Although Solidaires leadership did concede under pressure from other unions that capacity for such action did not exist, they argued that the work still needed to be done. Affirming the movement’s need and capacity to mobilise on both a mass and ongoing basis would be more productive than simply acknowledging and accepting its inadequacies, they felt[14].

As 2009 continued the movement declined. By 13 June the once three million-strong movement had plummeted to a mere 150, 000 and was essentially over, having achieved very little in the way of concessions. At the same time, the state was preparing a new wave of attacks on working people, this time in the form of an assault on France’s pension system.

Joint mobilisation against the attack on France's Pension System 2010

2010 Pension Struggle
In early 2010, the Fillon government announced that it was seeking to change France’s pension system. The proposed changes included raising the retirement age and increasing workers’ contributions to the social security scheme - effectively requiring workers to work more hours over a greater duration of their lifetimes.

In the wake of this announcement, the Intersyndicale resumed meeting in earnest. Their concerns were well-founded. Though Fillon’s attack on the pension system threatened to disadvantage all workers, its impacts would be felt most acutely by women, significantly reducing the number of women expected to qualify for a full pension and exacerbating the problem of French women retiring into poverty.

From the outset, the unions were divided in their view of the objectives of the movement. The class-struggle unions (combat syndicales), whose membership includes Solidaires (Solidarity), Force Ouvrière (Workers Force - FO), and large sections of both the Federation Syndicale Unitaire (FSU) and Confédération Générale du Travail (CGT) wanted the proposals to be totally withdrawn. The more conservative unions, most notably the Confédération française démocratique du travail (French Confederation of Democratic Workers - CFDT) and Confédération Française des Travailleurs Chrétiens (French Confederation of Christian Workers - CFTC) were more conciliatory, seeking greater consultation with the government regarding the changes. Yet despite these differences, there was eventually a basis for a common united movement involving France’s eight main union confederations and federations - although the early movement involved just five[15].

Initially, the 2010 movement was far smaller than the previous years with the March protests reaching only 800, 000 nationally. These disappointing numbers inevitably gave rise to commentary that the defeat of 2009 had undermined the mobilising capacity of the movement. However, as the year progressed the movement began to grow and the pace of mobilisations increased. By 24 June mobilisations had reached 1.92 million. Numbers continued to grow as the legislation worked its way through France’s legislative processes in September and October. Ultimately, there were seven mobilisations, all exceeding two million people and peaking at 3.5 million. However, the total number of people involved in the movement is likely to have been far greater[16].

Solidaires Adverstisment calling for a genderal strike on September 9, 2010

Significantly, in a number of industries the days of mobilisation were linked by strike action. Initially these renewable strikes began in France’s oil refineries - triggered by a struggle around Total’s plans to close its Dunkirk refinery[17]. Yet the movement also spread to other sectors. This spread was facilitated, in part, by a decision within the intersyndicale to allow industrial action in workplaces, and at the municipal level, to be initiated by general assemblies of workers at those levels. This meant that, in those sectors and regions where the more militant unions had greater influence, they were able to link protracted strikes to the mobilisations, which were then called and supported by all unions between the punctuating mass mobilisations. Under France’s Labour Code and constitution, if one union in a workplace issues a strike notice then any worker can participate regardless of their union affiliation. While there were a number of spaces where renewable strikes were in effect, the most important of these was in the oil refineries whose closure massively disrupted fuel supplies across France[18].

Despite the size and escalating character of the movement the government pushed ahead with passing the legislation. In the wake of the passing of the legislation in November, there was one more joint mass mobilisation on November 23. The interior ministry estimated the protests size at 52, 000 and the unions did not announce a size estimate. This small mobilisation indicated that the movement had effectively collapsed. The more conservative unions withdrew from the campaign on the promise that the legislation, whose impact was not immediate but delayed, could be defeated via the election of a PS government in 2012.Those workers who remained on strike - most notably the oil refinery workers - became increasingly isolated as the movement collapsed. In Marseille, a city controlled by the PS, municipal workers were forced back to work using legislation introduced by the de Vilipin government the year before[19]. This legislation, which guaranteed minimum essential services during strikes, was anti-worker by design and undermined a number localised strikes that were holding out against the collapse of the broader movement

 

Mobilisation in Marseille March 18, 2006

Movement against the First Employment Contract
In 2006, the de Villipin government had sought to introduce the CPE, a change in France’s employment laws which would have weakened the rights of workers under the age of 26, including allowing employers to dismiss young workers aged between 18-26 without notice or reason during their first two years of employment[20]. By targeting just younger workers, the de Villepin government hoped that by focusing on one section of the workforce they could divide and limit any potential opposition movement.

Initially this was the case, as there was limited united resistance by the union confederations[21]. However, despite the lack of leadership from workers’ unions, high school and university students, primarily organised via the Union Nationale des Étudiants de France (National Union of Students of France), Fédération indépendante et démocratique lycéenne (Independent and Democratic High School Federation), and the Union Nationale Lycéenne (National Union of Secondary Students) began their own mass mobilisations - shutting down schools and universities and driving mass mobilisations of students. These student mobilisations gave impetus for militants within the union confederations to push to support the student protests[22]. Between the rising peaks of mass mobilisations, student pursued a broader goal of disrupting the economy via their own collective actions and concentrated on building alliances with workers to support and exacerbate the disruption. By March 2006, 68 of France’s 89 universities were either occupied or on strike with many high schools across France barricaded shut by striking students[24]. More spectacular were the student occupations of rail lines or the successful blocking of Airbus airliners being transported from manufacturing plants[25].

As inspiring as the movement was, it was not significantly bigger or more disruptive than the 2010 movement. What really differentiated the 2006 movement against the CPE from the 2010 movement to defend pensions was that when the CPE was passed, the movement continued. In passing the legislation in 2006, the de Villepin government gambled that passing of the legislation would dissipate the movement and remove the threat to French state and capital[26]. When the movement continued despite the legislation passing the threat effectively expanded with no hope that it would decline in the short-term. In response to the movement’s determination, the government retreated and the legislation, despite passing, became a dead letter[27].

The lesson to be drawn from comparing the events of 2006 and 2010 is not that mass movements are no longer capable of winning, or that strikes are no longer crucial to achieving victory in industrial and political struggles. It is instead that these struggles are ultimately battles of will and endurance. What changed between 2006 and 2010 was not the capacity of the movement to mobilise- indeed the 2010 movement was arguably larger in size than the 2006 mobilisations. No, what differed between them was the determination of the ruling class to persist with their attacks on working people and, even more crucially, the ability in 2006 of the more radical sections of the movement, most notably the student unions, to cohere and mobilise after the passing of the legislation. It is not sufficient for our movements to be massive or powerful. In order to be victorious,the will and determination of workers must be strong enough to outlast that of capital and its governments. Escalating and disruptive action is thus most effective when deployed as a means of undermining capital’s confidence and endurance. The continuation of the mass movement of 2006 and consequent disruption of the economy cast the gamble made by the right to push forward with legislation as a grievous error, creating the fear that the movement would not stop. By contrast in 2010, the government’s bet proved correct, the movement did collapse and the state and capital could both be confident not only to maintain that round of attacks but contemplate and implant further attacks on working people.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 Luxemburg, R. 1906. The mass strike, the political party, and the trade unions. Marxist Internet 
Archive. https://www.marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1906/mass-strike/.
2 ibid.
3 ibid.
4 Haug, F., Wilde, F., and Heidenreich, F. 2018. “Mass strike.” Rosa-Luxemburg-Stiftung. https://www.rosalux.de/publikation/id/43671/mass-strike?cHash=4dc514bc263b77a899f91e9878b10683.
5 Cézard, Yann. 2020. “1995-2003-2010: lessons from three large-scale mobilizations.” International Viewpoint. https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article6347.
   Carasso, L. 2005. “E After the success of the "no from the left."” International Viewpoint. https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article845.
   Carasso, L. 2006. “A major social and solitical crisis.” International Viewpoint. https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1070.
6 Amable, B. and Palombarini, S. 2021. The last neoliberal: Macron and the origins of France's political crisis. London: Verso.
7 Jacobin. 2016. “When the workers were communists.” Jacobin. https://www.jacobinmag.com/2016/10/when-the-workers-were-communists/.
8 Perez, Benito. 2007. “The presidential campaign is rotting French political life.” International Viewpoint. https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1214.
   Ligue Communiste Revolutionaire. 2007. “For the foundation of a new anti-capitalist party.” International Viewpoint. https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1290.
   Ligue Communiste Revolutionaire. 2008. “Address for a new anticapitalist party.” International Viewpoint. https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1422.
9 Henley, J. 2002. “French poll result seen as catastrophe.” DAWN. https://www.dawn.com/news/29700/french-poll-result-seen-as-catastrophe.
10 Mirowski, P. 2014. Never let a serious crisis go to waste: How neoliberalism survived the financial meltdown. London: Verso.
11 Latham, L. 2009a. “French unions ready for a general strike on March 19.” Revitalising Labour. https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2009/03/french-unions-ready-for-general-strike.html.
12 Latham, L. 2009b. “French unions plan campaign against financial crisis Following 3 Million strong general strike.” Revitalising Labour. https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2009/03/french-union-plan-campaign-following-3.html.
13 National Burea of the Trade Union Solidaires. 2009. “Together let us make the assessment - To be stronger tomorrow.” Revitalising Labour. https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2009/09/solidaires-assessment-of-french.html.
14 ibid.
15 Latham, L. 2010a. “Thousands of French workers march to defend pensions.” Revitalising Labour. https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/03/thousands-of-french-workers-march-to.html.
16 ibid
Latham, L. 2010b. “French workers mobilise to defend pensions.” Revitalising Labour. https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/06/french-workers-mobilise-to-defend.html.
Latham, L. 2010c. “Millions of workers march to defend pensions in France.” Revitalising Labour. https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/09/millions-of-workers-march-to-defend.html.
Latham, L. 2010d. “French workers fight back against pension attack.” Revitalising Labour. https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/10/french-workers-fight-back-against.html.
Trade Union Solidaires. 2010. “Solidaires - Pensions: Win by our determination!” Revitalising Labour. https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/10/solidaires-pensions-win-by-our.html.
17 Latham, L. 2010e. “French Senate votes to raise retirement age as unions prepare for a day of strikes.” Revitalising Labour. https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/10/french-senate-votes-to-raise-retirement.html.
18 Andrews, W. and Vandoorne, S. 2010. “Fuel imports into France surge as protests imperil transportation.” CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/10/18/france.strikes.shortage/index.html.
19 Latham, L. 2010f. “France: Sarkozy enacts pensions law as mass mobilisations continue.” Revitalising Labour. https://revitalisinglabour.blogspot.com/2010/11/france-sarkozy-enacts-pensions-law-as.html.
    Smith, M. 2010. “France: Not victorious, but not defeated.” Links: International Journal of Socialist Renewal. http://links.org.au/node/2034.
20 Steven. 2006. “The French movement against the CPE, 2006.” libcom. https://libcom.org/blog/short-history-cpe-protests-france.
21 Cézard op cit.
22 Cézard op cit.
     Steven op cit
     Périn, M. 2006. “Inside the occupation movement: ‘Together we are recreating our university.’” Socialist Worker, March 18, 2006. https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/8300/Inside+the+occupation+movement%3A+Together+we+are+recreating+our+university.
23 Smith, M. 2006a. “Student movement puts government on the defensive.” International Viewpoint. https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article996.
Wolfreys, J. 2006. “Daniel Bensaïd: ‘This movement is directly based on a social question.’” Socialist Worker. https://socialistworker.co.uk/art/8364/Daniel+Bensa%C3%AFd%3A+This+movement+is+directly+based+on+a+social+question.
24 Duthu, M. 2006. “French workers and youth unite against the First Employment Contract: No to all precarious contracts.” In Defence of Marxism. https://www.marxist.com/french-workers-youth-unite160306.htm.
Smith, M. 2006b. “Anti-labour law movement enters key stage.” International Viewpoint. https://internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1000.
25 Chrisafis, A. 2006. “Chirac backs down and scraps youth job law.” The Guardian, April 11, 2006. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/apr/11/france.angeliquechrisafis.
26 ibid.
     Cézard op cit.
     Steven op cit.
27 Cézard op cit.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is posted under copyleft, verbatim copying and distribution of the entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved. If you reprint this article please email me at revitalisinglabour@gmail.com to let me know.

Read more...

Record abstention in French elections as Macron secures majority

Lisbeth Latham

  The first round France’s National Assembly elections have been marked by record abstention of 51.29% of the electorate.

The abstentionism primarily impacted on the far-right and left parties. Meanwhile, recently elected President Emmanuel Macron’s The Republic on the March (LREM) and its allies look to secure a strong parliamentary majority in the second round of elections on June 18.

This would strengthen LREM and allies capacity to carry out Macron’s agenda of regressive assaults on students, workers, the unemployed and retirees. LREM’s victory in the first round creates a significant challenge for the French left to build resistance to Macron.

LREM’s allies include the centrist Democratic Movement (MoDem), along with dissident members of the right-wing The Republicans (LR) and the Socialist Party (PS). Combined, these forces received 32.32% of the vote. They are expected to ultimately win between 390-440 out of the 577 seats in the National Assembly.

The second highest result was achieved by the LR and allied right-wing parties, which received 21.57% of the vote. These traditional right-wing parties are expected to win between 70 and 90 seats in the second round.

The far-right Front National placed third with 13.20%, with the FN are expected to increase the number of seats it holds beyond its current two. There is an outside chance it could win enough seats to form a formal parliamentary group (15 seats).

Left results

On the left, Jean-Luc Melenchon’s France Unbowed (FI) received 11.02% of the vote, and 65 of its candidates have qualified for the second round.

The vote for the traditional social democratic party, the PS, and its allies fell dramatically from 2012, although it was up from its record low in the presidential elections. They won 9.51% of the vote and are expected to win 20-30 seats. This is down dramatically from the 331 seats they hold in the outgoing parliament, with a large number of former government ministers already eliminated in the second round.

The French Communist Party (PCF), for its part, had been heavily dependent on the Left Front electoral alliance with Melenchon’s Left Party to win its seven seats in 2012. With no alliance between the PCF and FI, it suffered a sharp decline in its electoral fortunes — receiving just 2.72% of the vote. Just 12 PCF candidates qualified for the second round.

LREM’s likely strong majority, along with Macron’s victory in the presidential election, is being presented as a rejection as the mainstream parties of the centre-left and the right, as well as an endorsement of Macron’s “modernising” agenda.

Macron is already flagging a new round of attacks on workers and their unions. These include expanding the areas that a company level agreement can undercut a sectoral agreement — along with his campaign pledge to cut France’s public sector by 140,000 jobs.

No mandate

However, while appearing a strong result, the reality is LREM domination of the vote is primarily a consequence of the decline in the mobilisation of voters of the left and far right.

Candidates backed by Macron received 1.3 million fewer votes than Macron did in the first round of the presidential election. Moreover, LREM vote constitutes a small section of the French electorate.

The New Anti-capitalist Party (NPA) pointed out in a statement: “With over 51% abstention, the results of the first round of parliamentary election is that of a sick and increasingly undemocratic Republic. 

“That the Republic on the March should have an absolute majority in the Assembly with the support of 16% of registered voters ... this result shows that this government has no legitimacy to rule by decree, much less to destroy our social gains, the Labour Code, or social Security”.

It is unclear what drove the sharp decline electoral support for the FI and the PCF from the first round of the presidential election. Some of the decline potentially reflects a letdown from Macron’s victory, along with difficulty in transforming Melenchon’s individual electoral appeal to the FI.

Another factor may well have been the failure of the FI and PCF to build a united left electoral campaign for the legislative elections. This division was a consequence of long running tensions between Melenchon and the Left Party on the one hand and the PCF on the other.

These tensions led the majority the PCF’s national conference in November to reject a proposal that the PCF support Melenchon’s presidential campaign. The PCF subsequently endorsed Melenchon only after a narrow membership vote in favour.

Struggle for united left 

There was widespread support for a united legislative campaign, but there was no agreement over the basis for such an alliance.

The PCF sought an alliance based on non-aggression and the ability the parties to present their own programs under their own banner. The FI, on the other hand, made the basis of unity having all candidates accepting its program, under its banner and with all public funding based on votes going to the FI.

The impact of this division was felt in a range of ways. It led to a number of the PCF candidates standing solely as FI candidates. It also led to a level of alienation of the bases of the different groups over the blame game for divisions.

The only PCF candidates who did not compete against an FI candidate in their constituency were those PCF members of parliament who endorsed Melenchon’s campaign. These were among some of the better performing PCF candidates (some receiving more than 30% of the vote in their constituencies).

However, this may also have been a consequence of them standing in seats where the PCF has continued to maintain strong links with the working class.

It is unclear exactly how much of an impact the standing of multiple left candidates in individual constituencies had on the left vote. But it is clear that the divided situation resulted in less left candidates qualifying for the second round of the elections. This weakens the ability of the left to blunt the size of the LREM’s parliamentary majority.

The FI and PCF leaderships have both made clear the pressing need for the left to unite to support the remaining left candidates. There are 80 left candidates who made it through to the second round (including PS candidates who have consistently opposed anti-worker changes to the Labour Code). There are 42 seen as being in a strong position to win a seat.

However, this number could rise if the left is able to mobilise a greater section of its base in the second round. PCF national secretary Pierre Laurent was reported in l'Humanite on June 13 as saying: “The mobilisation of leftist voters is necessary because it is thanks to the huge abstention that the Republic on the Move could get an absolute majority.”

The street

As important as the June 18 second round vote will be in establishing a parliamentary opposition to Macron, the reality will be that the main struggle against attacks on social gains in France will occur in the street.

The Front Social, established in April and including more than 100 unions and other activist groups, has called national mobilisations against Macron for June 19. Unions in Paris have also called protests for June 27, the day that newly elected MPs will take their seats, as part of their campaign against the attacks on France’s labour laws.

These mobilisations will be important steps in the building of a movement against Macron.

[This article originally appeared in Green Left Weekly #1141]

Read more...

France: Facing the provocations of a beleaguered government, continue for the withdrawal of the El Khomri law

Nouveau Parti Anticapitaliste
Originally published May 3, 2016

The parliamentary debate on the law began Tuesday, May 3 with 5000 amendments were tabled, which will require either a long negotiation, or for the government to impose its will by the using Article 49-3[1].The media say that the government short 40 votes it needs to pass its legislation. Hollande and Valls are very low in the polls. All this shows the political weakness of the government.

Violence is on the government side and the police
We understand better, then, why they use large-scale violence to try to stop the movement. On April 28, as on May 1, it was Cazeneuve[2] and Valls and who were responsible for violence that took place on the sidelines of events. It is the behavior of the prefects and police who provoked the violence. Who instructs the CRS[3] to be permanently in contact with the protesters? Who sends in plain clothes police, causing the disruption in the demonstrations? The Minister of the Interior obviously. Fifty students were even summoned by the Police and put in custody in the Department 92 [4] on Monday, May 2!

The right and the extreme right go even further, claiming the ban on demonstrations and the standing night. The FN prime demand is the for dissolution of groups of the "extreme left."

All these people, defenders of the rich, Medef [France's largest employer organisation], and the banks are afraid. They see that the movement that has risen rejects their unjust and inhuman system where a privileged few get rich without limits at the expense of the majority of the population.

Legitimacy is on our side
They fear, provoke and repress because they know full well that their policy does not serve the interests of the people but the banks and multinationals. They know their stories of recovery, it's phony: unemployment is not declining, while the number of unemployment benefit recipients fell but the number experiencing precarity increased!

They know that if "it gets better" as claimed by Hollande, it is only for profits and paychecks but not for employees, not for young people.

That is why their policy of intimidation should not set us back quite the contrary. We are in process of demonstrating to the government, right, and FN that legitimacy of the demands of the movement is complete. Yes, we must impose the withdrawal of the El Khomri law must begin to impose another power struggle.

If we come together, we will have the strength to win
To achieve victory, it is necessary that all employees stop working at the same time, for not one but for several days, stopping the country and production! This would show that the power of all the wealthy comes only from our work! Let us ensure the changing of which camp is confident!

This is what passes through the minds of many employees, of all those who mobilized against the closure of their business against layoffs or against job cuts in the public service. Often we fought isolated from each other and often we have experienced losses. Today we finally see the opportunity to join forces and bring a halt to the government and employers.

We know that to force the government to cede, we can not content ourselves to isolated strike days.We need to build a global movement that paralyzes the economy, a general strike.

The railway workers, nor all workers and young people have not said their last word. We can win, confident in our own strength.

Employees, youth, private sector employees and pensioners, together!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 
1 Refers to Article 49-3 of the French Constitution, "commitment of responsibility" it allows the government to pass a bill without a vote unless a vote of no confidence is successful against the government with 48 hours of bill being pushed through.
2 Bernard Cazeneuve is the current French Minister of the Interior. The Minister of the Interior is responsible for internal security within France including the French National Police and the French Gendarmerie.
3 Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité (Republican Security Companies) are the riot control force of the French police.
4 France's Department 92, of Hauts-de-Seine covering the Western inner suburbs of Paris. Fortyseven students involved in protests were summoned questioning with 13 taken into custody over a blocade of a high school being set on fire and damaging the school.

Read more...