Where is France headed?

A reader who is not a specialist in French politics might think that the appointment of Dominique de Villepin to the post of prime minister on May 31, after the people won a “no” victory in the referendum on the European Constitution, meant a change of course in the relations between Paris and Washington.

Isn’t de Villepin the political leader who, just some months ago in the UN Security Council, stood up against the Bush administration’s war machine and opposed the war on Iraq? And in France, didn’t he make his first priority the fight against unemployment?

Question: Should an alteration in France’s political position in a less neo liberal and less pro-U.S. direction be expected?

Answer: most probably, no. De Villepin is simply reusing the old untrue slogans of President Jacques Chirac’s political campaign—of whom he was and is a faithful supporter. He is calling for reducing the “social split” and has discovered that unemployment in France has been more than 10 percent for 20 years now.

But he plans to “create jobs and reinforce social cohesion” by attacking social secu rity and the laws defending labor rights. In other words, he is accentuating the same neoliberal policies that are at the root of the problems he claims he is solving.

This government’s perspective is for more neoliberalism and also, in spite of appearances, more pro-U.S., that is, more “Atlantic.” Several facts suggest this course.

First, the French people have learned, to their surprise, that a French-U.S. joint military base has been active for more than three years in Paris, where French secret service agents and CIA agents work together. One can imagine these professional colleagues following on television together the famous “confrontation” between France and the United States at the UN.

A strong force in the new government is Chirac’s rival in the UMP, Nicolas Sarkozy, who is minister of the interior and now leader of the most powerful right-wing party in France. Sarkozy is supported by the majority of the members of Parliament and is pro-U.S. It is said he will receive Washington’s support. It is almost unnecessary to add that he, too, is in favor of a hard neoliberal line, just like his brother Guillaume, who is considered the second most powerful of the French bosses.

Finally, the friendship between French and U.S. capitalists has been reinforced by the appointment of pro-U.S. ministers of commerce, budget and foreign trade. The Villepin-Sarkozy duo thus promises to deliver a little more of the same thing.

While waiting for the presidential term to end in 2007, de Villepin hopes to attract votes on the left by promising more jobs, while Sarkozy will reach out to the right using the issues of safety and the fight against immigration—priorities of the extreme right. At the beginning of July, de Villepin announced new privatizations, while Sarkozy announced new deportations of undocumented workers.

Lessons for the left

What lessons can the progressive left draw from the victory of the “no” vote?

First, that the vigilance of the rank and file of the trade-union and pro-working-class organizations is essential to impose a democratic policy on their leadership, who are influenced by neoliberal pressures from the bourgeoisie. This already happened when militants in the General Confederation of Labor (CGT), the leading union of the French workers and close to French communists, mobilized and reversed the line of their leadership from “yes” to “no” on the referendum.

The second lesson is that when the leadership of a trade union or workers’ organization again becomes what it should never have stopped being—that is, progressive and combative—that leadership can sometimes quickly regain the confidence and support of its rank and file. The leaders of the French Communist Party (PCF), after resuming their positions defending the interests of the working class and opposing the rightist drift of social democracy, made the right choice in supporting the “no” vote, and 98 percent of their membership agreed in the referendum. This 98 percent was the strongest proportion of all the parties.

The Socialist Party (PS) had a much different result. To give the appearance of internal democracy, its leaders held a vote of party activists, and manipulated this vote so that 55 percent voted “yes” under pressure from the top leaders. But at the referendum itself, 59 percent of those who identify with the PS voted “no” when they were released from the pressure coming down from on top.

Third, the rebuilding of a radical left at the service of its activist rank and file will have to focus on organizing to defend the program that is commonly supported, while accepting differences.

In the French situation, the PCF was the decisive organizational and logistic center of the “no” vote during the campaign. Without the local and material support the PCF brought to the other progressive supporters of the “no” vote, the victory undoubtedly would not have been possible.

Thus a historical opportunity has opened for a popularly supported union of the left. It is vital not to waste this opportunity—in particular by excessive criticisms or regressive alliances.

One type of error would be if the PCF again makes an electoral alliance with the pro-“yes” leadership of the PS. Another would be if the Revolutionary Communist League (LCR) makes an alliance with those in the PS who supported the “no” vote but have rallied to the side of party leader Laurent Fabius, who is lined up with the U.S. There is no certainty that the left forces will avoid these pitfalls.

Consequently, it would undoubtedly be advisable today to widen and deepen the discussions and the struggles that led to the victory of the “no” vote, to increase solidarity in action among workers on the ground, to accentuate the pressures against the neoliberal attack while supporting the mobilizations of other peoples of Europe and to counter the reactions of the elites, who have decided to subordinate the European people to the rule of big finance capital and the warlike strategy of the U.S. government.

That would go along with reclaiming our revolutionary language and making a critical rereading of the history of our struggles, while reinforcing the communication and exchanges among workers’ organizations in the North, along with a rebirth of solidarity with the people of the South in struggle—Cuba, Venezuela and Palestine, for example. We must transform our criticism of neoliberalism and the war into proposals for a break with capitalism and imperialism.

The current situation in France and Europe requires a rupture, an alternative to neoliberal and pro-U.S. policies, a choice to defend democratic rights and social gains. To recognize that neither France nor Europe is on the verge of a revolution does not mean it is necessary to give up the objective of a revolution, let alone that of building socialism in this country and on this continent.

It is a question of enlisting in the fight for socialism on a worldwide scale, a long-term struggle in which the participation of the progressives in the United States will be fundamental.

Rémy Herrera is a researcher at the National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) and teaches Economics of Development at the University of Paris—Panthéon-Sorbonne.