A European route to une nouvelle gauche Française ?

Thomas Ferenczi

Europa, November 2007

After the defeat of Segolène Royal in the Presidential elections in France, and then the heavy loses of the Socialist Party in the Parliamentary elections, the French Left is looking for a way to redefine itself. Thomas Ferenczi, Europe editor of Le Monde, suggests a possible route …

The French Socialists, who were profoundly divided in 2005 over the project for the European Constitution, still have not managed to adopt a coherent attitude toward Europe. Out of power since 2002, they denounce the way the Union works, which they regard as too complaisant regarding neo-liberalism and the rule of the market. But when they directed the government, first under François Mitterrand and then Lionel Jospin, they happily accepted the rules, founded on competition and free exchange. Thus, depending on the circumstances, they either insist on the weaknesses of the European construction or they choose to underline the advantages, to such an extent that they forget the insufficiencies. Torn between ideas of a social Europe and the realities of a liberal Europe, they try in vain to make coherent their words and their actions.

This tear is nothing new. Since the beginning of the European unification, the left in France has been divided between a positive vision of the communitarian project and a critical vision. The positive vision: although it may be true that the unification of Europe is first of all founded on the putting in place of a common market, conforming to the principles of a market economy, it is also seen to be the symbol of reconciliation between ancient enemies, in particular France and Germany, and as the method of consolidating democracy in the Old continent. Critical vision: the great European market is inscribed in the logic of the development of modern capitalism, servile to the domination of the United States, which has transformed the Union over several decades into a Trojan horse of an unconquered globalisation. ‘The liberal development of the European construction has obscured the project of mutual integration and solidarity’ the PS wrote in its manifesto.

The majority of the Socialist party is still attached to the European project such as it was elaborated and then put in action by the founding fathers – Jean Monnet, Robert Schuman, Konrad Adenauer… Along with the Christian Democrats, the social-democrats, particularly in France, have been over 50 years the principle actors in constructing Europe. In the name of internationalism, which is one of the elements of their identity, they have supported a politics of opening borders and creating a united Europe against the currents of nationalism and separatism. On the other hand, another part of the left – a minority of socialists, communists, the extreme left – have fought against this politics, considered as an instrument of war at the service of the struggle against communism. Their priorities have instead been the struggles in the third world and the revolts of decolonisation rather than the European cause.

Debates over the effect of globalisation have revived the quarrels between the two political lefts over the roles of the European Union. For the radical left, baptised firstly as anti-globalist and then alter-globalist, Europe should offer a way of resisting globalisation rather than favour its further spread. For the moderate left, which one might call ‘social-liberal’, globalisation is a reality, which France will not be able to escape and which Europe must attempt to manage in such a way as to exploit the positive aspects. Europe as fortress or Europe as manager? Between these two extremes, a large number of socialists, who regard this choice as too Manichean, are looking for an intermediate route.

‘Globalisation is a fact but the liberal course it has taken is not inevitable’ affirms the manifesto of the Socialist Party, according to which ‘the European Union will remain an important tool for taking control of our future.’ How? In giving priority to full employment, in harmonising social rights from above, in establishing rules which ensure a ‘better protection’ in world-wide market competition. Hubert Védrine – the former minister for foreign affairs and close collaborator of François Mitterrand and then Lionel Jospin – was more precise in a recent report to the President of Republic. He notes the inquietude of a large part of the French public faced with globalisation and the hope they place in an ‘other’ globalisation…

According to Védrine, if belief in ‘happy globalisation’ has failed to convince public opinion, ‘suspicious anti-globalisation’ has shown its ‘sterility’. Thus he recommends an ‘offensive strategy’ within the European Union, not ‘faced’ with globalisation but ‘within’ globalisation. The crucial word is ‘adapt’. ‘To adapt to play part in globalisation’ he says, ‘is not to conform to rules imposed from the outside, but instead to valorise our advantages and to liberate our energies in trying to correct the mechanisms.’ For him, openness does not exclude a certain degree of protection, even if one must admit, undogmatically, that ‘some protections are justified, whereas others are inefficient.’

The route is very narrow: it will displease the radical left without capturing the sentiment of the liberal right. But perhaps it would be a way for the social-democratic left to reaffirm its identity.

BACK TO TOP

Website Design By ChrisWalmsley.co.uk
© 2008

Hosting by e-noise.com