How should and could an antisystem left, such as La France Insoumise (LFI), have reacted in the circumstances created by the sudden dissolution of the National Assembly (NA) and its new configuration resulting from the subsequent parliamentary elections? A radical anticapitalist and democratic political force should have explained that the implementation of its programme through the existing capitalist and non-democratic institutions (the French 5th Republic) requires the support of an absolute majority of the NA, which would itself be the outcome of support by an absolute majority of the population. This force should have explained that it would refuse to be associated with the government in the absence of this condition. Its parliamentary bloc would thus have taken up a position of radical opposition to the system, denouncing the wheeling and dealing of the forces engaged in the race for pay-outs. This principled stance, in stark contrast to the sad spectacle offered by the other blocs, would have been combined with the pursuit of the fight by means of parliamentary action based on social struggles.

Unfortunately, the political formation that has come closest to this attitude is not the far left, but the far right. Before the second round of parliamentary elections, Jordan Bardella of the Rassemblement National (RN) explained that he would only take the reins of government if his party won an absolute majority in the National Assembly. He then softened his stance somewhat, to take account of any potential additional forces from the right-wing Les Republicains (LR) camp. Since 7 July, the RN has also portrayed itself as being antisystem, refusing to engage in any search for compromise with the other blocs and assuming a principled ‘democratic’ position to the point of voting for two LFI MPs as vice-presidents of the NA (out of six). Meanwhile, the Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP) put on a sorry show, in stark contrast to the serenity displayed by the RN. The RN’s attitude, which is in line with the strategy it has been implementing for several years now, will certainly pay off. Indeed, there is every reason to fear that in the event of a new election in the present circumstances – parliamentary or presidential – the RN will continue what looks like an uninterrupted march towards power.

Admittedly, the NFP obtained a (very) relative majority in the National Assembly with 28.2% of the votes cast in the first round (positive vote) out of 66.7% of the electorate (i.e., 18.8% of registered voters, or less than one person in five) and a third of the NA seats, including those on the left beyond the NFP. The NFP is thus certainly within its rights to request the post of prime minister, but this presupposes a willingness to compromise with the existing state authorities and seek compromises in the NA. In fact, such a scenario is already taking shape: LFI has correctly announced that it would submit a bill to repeal the pension reform, which corresponds to ‘the pursuit of the fight by means of parliamentary action based on social struggles’ mentioned above. This bill could however be adopted at the NA thanks to the support of the RN, which has – quite astutely – announced that it will vote in favour of it! Indeed, this is how the two LFI MPs were elected as vice-presidents of the NA: with the votes of the RN, each obtaining thus close to 60% of the Assembly’s votes.

Over and above its stated respect for democratic rules, the RN is clearly hoping for institutional dysfunction (a ‘worst-case scenario’ by playing the LFI card) in order to force new elections in the short term. However, while parliamentary convergences against nature are acceptable as a way of turning the tables on an undemocratic system in favour of a social issue such as pensions, they cannot constitute a permanent mode of government. And yet, on the evening of the second round of voting, Jean-Luc Mélenchon was quick to proclaim in the name of LFI that the left had won and that it should form the next government. This attitude paved the way for distressing horse trading between LFI and the rest of the NFP, until an agreement was reached on Lucie Castets as joint candidate for Prime Minister. It is likely that Macron will appoint her once the Olympics are over, leaving the NFP time to continue its horse trading for the distribution of portfolios within its government. If the NFP manages to maintain its unity between now and the end of August, a government led by Lucie Castets – should it survive a motion of censure that would be unavoidable in case LFI members are holding key ministries – will be constrained by all that was evident in the aftermath of the legislative run-off.

It would have been far more appropriate for LFI to proclaim clearly that it will not participate in a government in the absence of an absolute majority obtained by the left, but that it would support a government formed by the other components of the NFP – rather like the support given in parliament by the Portuguese Left Bloc in 2015 to the minority socialist government. This would leave LFI’s hands free to continue doing what it rightly started by announcing parliamentary action against the pension reform. In this way, LFI would have gained respect as a reliable force, committed to implementing the NFP program – ‘the whole program, nothing but the program’, as Jean-Luc Mélenchon put it on the evening of 7 July. By not participating in the government, LFI would have removed the main argument used by the Macronists and other ‘centrists’ to block the formation of a left-wing government. At the same time, LFI would have kept out of the compromises of all kinds that this left-wing government will inevitably have to make.

Only such an attitude would enable LFI to win the respect of public opinion as an antisystem force committed to its principles, in a mirror image of the appearance that the RN is trying to give itself, not without success. Faced with a desperate regime that is hated by the vast majority of the population, and a neoliberal system in deep crisis, it is imperative that the radical left reinforces its image as an antisystem force, and challenges the far-right’s hypocritical claim to this status. It is also essential for the radical left to assert its loyalty to its own democratic principles, which require a radical critique of the institutions of the 5th Republic, as well as of the antidemocratic voting system for parliamentary elections.

Ultimately, the radical left must aim for fundamental institutional change through the election of a constituent assembly. But for this to happen, the country would need to witness the buildup of a left-wing majority in favour of breaking with the present institutions – either electorally, or through major mass mobilization (general strike), or a combination of the two. In the meantime, while for the moment it is the far right that has the wind in its sails, it would be highly irresponsible to play up the crisis in order to provoke a new presidential election in the hope of winning it, taking the very high risk of contributing instead to the final act of the RN’s resistible rise.

Source >> L’Anticapitaliste

Art (49) Book Review (104) Books (106) Capitalism (64) China (76) Climate Emergency (97) Conservative Government (90) Conservative Party (45) COVID-19 (44) Economics (36) EcoSocialism (48) Elections (77) Europe (44) Fascism (54) Film (49) Film Review (61) France (67) Gaza (55) Imperialism (95) Israel (108) Italy (43) Keir Starmer (50) Labour Party (108) Long Read (39) Marxism (47) Palestine (138) pandemic (78) Protest (145) Russia (322) Solidarity (126) Statement (46) Trade Unionism (132) Ukraine (324) United States of America (124) War (351)