We have a guest of a most special sort today. Our dear friend Malcolm Harvey, a founding editor of Better Nation and more recently an occasional Thinker of Unpopular Thoughts, considers the real meaning of the Front National’s first round poll results in France.
I don’t pretend to be an expert in French politics, but I guess I know a little more than some. I’m what you’d call an interested observer of elections (which you would never have guessed from my previous involvement with this blog). I have to say though, I was a little surprised by – what I’d characterise as the – rather hysterical reaction to Marine Le Pen’s polling 18% in the first round of the Presidential election.
The first thing which should be pointed out is that this was only the first round. The French use a run-off system to decide their President. The first round is open – and there are often as many as 10 candidates to choose from. The two candidates with the highest share of the first round vote go forward to a second (and final) round two weeks later. So voters have what you might call more freedom – they can make their first vote a vote for their clear preference, or make it a protest vote, with the knowledge that the President will not be decided until the second round.
We’re often hearing (from the likes of John Curtice) that the Scottish electorate have become much more “sophisticated” in their distinguishing between UK, Scottish, European and local authority elections and altering their votes accordingly – and it would appear the French are equally knowledgeable about how to best operate their electoral system.
The second thing I’d point out is that Marine Le Pen’s party – the Front National – are not the party of her father. Though they do maintain what would colloquially be described as a “right-wing” ideology, since she took over the presidency of the party has had much more of an economic – and dare I say it, populist – focus. A Eurosceptic, Marine Le Pen advocates French withdrawal from the Eurozone – and also opposes free trade, supporting a form of protectionism instead. In a time of economic recession, when the EU has proved unpopular and the Eurozone itself is falling apart, you can understand why this would be a popular position, and one which voters might well support.
But it isn’t only an economic position. It is a position which is consistent with what, for want of a better phrase, would pass for French nationalism. Until very recently, France was the epitome of a centralised state, to the point that regionalism was totally disallowed and the use of distinct regional languages (Breton, Basque, Occitan) was actively stamped out. There was “one France”. The point I’m emphasising here is that the French nation was above all else. And while this policy has been discontinued, the attitude – the primacy of Frenchness over others, the protection of the “one France” – remains in some places, and can go some way to explaining a vote for the Front National.
Of course, there will inevitably be those who subscribe to their anti-immigration views. But to characterise this as a “rise of fascism” is, I think, overstating the case. For the above reasons – the economic position of the Front National, and the fact that this was only the first round of the election – mean that categorising those who voted for Marine Le Pen as “extremist” or “right-wing” is somewhat simplistic. Indeed, some might even have been attracted to them for their anti-nuclear position (evidence for James that even those who would otherwise be beyond the pale can have some redeeming qualities!).
The majority of that 18% was, in my opinion, a clear protest vote. With the second round on 6 May, we’ll see what that 18% do. Perhaps some of them – those who feel that neither Sarkozy nor Hollande offer them a clear option – will stay at home. But many will choose their “least worst” option in the second round, an indication, perhaps, that while they wanted to display some kind of protest in the first round, they will return to a more moderate position in the second.
#1 by scottish_skier on April 27, 2012 - 7:18 pm
My wife is French and I can happily confirm you are correct in that the vote for Le Pen was simply a protest one. The FN get around 4% of the vote in parliamentary elections etc and ergo are a minor force in French politics.
In the presidential elections, people know the FN candidate will never get a majority and even if they make it to the second round they will never win. So if people are unhappy with the two front runners, they vote FN to send a big message. Normally it is the younger voters/students etc that do it.
The good thing about politics in France is that people go out and vote/get involved. Also, while the FN present a scary prospect, I think it is good that the French PR-type system does not ‘hide’ them in the way the UK FPTP system does. It may be unpalatable to think people support strongly authoritarian parties, but best not ignore it….
#2 by Iain Menzies on April 27, 2012 - 7:36 pm
I think you may be over stating the extent to which this is a protest vote.
Granted that my knowledge of French politics only extends to what i can be botehred to read on wikipedia, on account of the BBC’s foreign coverage being so pathetic, but i dont think the result of the 2002 result backs up your point.
This years 18% is only slightly up on the first round 2002 vote. which rather supports your case that there isnt much prospect of the FN winning at the next french election.
However, in 2002 the FN got 700,000 MORE votes in the second round than the first.
#3 by Barbarian on April 27, 2012 - 7:39 pm
History has shown that when there is economic strife, voters will start looking more favourably to extremist politics. The best (worst?) example of this was Germany after the Great War. Both extreme left- and right-wing parties gained popularity, until things settled down and more centred politics become popular again. It is an extreme example given the circumstances at the time, but with Spain about to go down the toilet, we may see similar occurences as things get worse.
The danger with protest votes is that sometimes they might get someone elected!
#4 by Iain Menzies on April 27, 2012 - 8:14 pm
So THAT explains the SNP getting a majority in the Scottish Parliament after the financial crisis 😉
#5 by scottish_skier on April 27, 2012 - 8:38 pm
See below. The SNP’s success is that it is not extremist but clearly centrist on the global spectrum (not UK as it has become distorted to the economic right/authoritarian). That’s why people who don’t necessarily support independence voted for them.
#6 by James on April 27, 2012 - 8:40 pm
It’s a persuasive case, but on the cuts and the CT freeze it’s hard not to see the SNP leadership at least as centre-right rather than centrist. Socially they’re centre-left, I agree (as per the examples you give).
#7 by scottish_skier on April 27, 2012 - 8:57 pm
You could have one policy that was very right-wing economically and one which was very left wing but combined you’re in the centre. Both sides happy as possible? There will always be a left and a right, an authoritarian and a libertarian. Each end can’t ‘force’ its views on the other and expect success, yet that seems too often to be the mindset. Funny thing is the different ends often agree on many things yet rather than focus on this instead spend all their time fighting about the ones they don’t!
#8 by PMK on April 27, 2012 - 10:20 pm
I keep on hearing this claim repeated here: the “SNP leadership … as centre-right”.
For me, it is an almost entirely a false outlook. You cite “cuts” as evidence of this – what else can a devolved (rather than independent, or at least Federal “State”) government, dependent as it is wholly on a declining block grant, do re: “cuts”?! Something must be cut, as borrowing powers have been near non-existent historically!
If you restricted your point to the “regressive” council-tax freeze, it may hold more force for many. But then again, politicians have learned the hard way that changing tax rules always means losers, who are always more vocal than winners (and more upset than winners are “grateful” or pleased). It is simply practical politics to my mind, “don’t rock the boat”, and at best a very weak indicator of a position on the political spectrum.
#9 by James on April 27, 2012 - 11:30 pm
There are many many ways available to the Scottish Government, more or less alone amongst the devolved administrations, to run more progressive taxation. The whole of local taxation, including business rates, are within their power right now, before the (dubious) new Scotland Act comes into effect. The boat you don’t wish to rock is radically unequal, and I’m sick of it being like that.
#10 by PMK on April 28, 2012 - 2:52 pm
A fair point, but as I said, I think you argument is stronger if you stick purely to the issue of the council tax freeze. Even then – despite very selective quoting, on your part – it still doesn’t address the natural disinclination of politicians to make enemies. Simple facts: any change will create discontents, and those who benefit will likely not notice, remember at the next election, or make the connection with the current government.
On “the cuts” your argument is still nonsensical to my mind, as there is no element of choice involved! There is simply no ability to keep on spending as though it were the middle of the last decade, this is not a political statement, but the reality of devolved government.
I have yet to see any evidence as to how one places a party leadership on the political spectrum for taking either particular decision in this rational choice scenario, with large potential punishments/disincentives clearly in play.
#11 by James on April 28, 2012 - 3:00 pm
You don’t accept that a political choice has been made not to raised taxes on big business and the better off to protect public services, at Holyrood and even more at Holyrood? That’s an odd position.
#12 by scottish_skier on April 27, 2012 - 8:32 pm
Yes, that has truth to it, but then it depends what you term extremist. In terms of the (shall we say global rather than country specific) political spectrum, the Tories are not far from what could be defined as an extremist party. Free market neo-liberalism is an ‘extremist’ political stance just as communism is. Likewise New Labour started to become increasingly authoritarian following their jump to the economic right under Blair; not far away from the DUP by 2010.
http://www.politicalcompass.org/ukparties2010
In reality, the best solution IMO is a centrist, consensus government (I’m all for PR) where both sides agree policy based on compromise. The problem we have in the UK is there is no strong left political force, nor even a real centre one, simply variations on the economic right, with the big two both being quite authoritarian. The Libs should – and did to an extent historically – fill this role, but they seem to have lost their way with the influence of the orange bookers. However, the SNP seem to have worked this out well and very successfully taken the ‘real’ middle ground (very left compared to the big UK three, but actually just modestly left of centre ‘globally’) with policy attracting voters from both the economic left (e.g. towards the Greens, SSP) and right (yes, there are centre-righties voting for the SNP), the authoritarian (think secterianism & minimum pricing bills) and the libertarian (e.g. open on same sex marriage). This is no mean task but if it can be done it works very well. In my own opinion achieving ‘equilibrium’ between different aspects of the political spectrum (both social and economic) is really the only way to achieve long-term success/stability. Scandinavian social democracies do this reasonably well. Ok, straying off topic….
I stand by my earlier comment on the Le Pen vote being a protest vote. French Mrs SS (who is a modest left liberal and was very active in French politics as a student) was not bothered at all and simply said ‘Wow, a big protest’ after I pointed it out to her with concern….
#13 by Allan on April 28, 2012 - 8:06 pm
Not strictly speaking true. The Germans went for the extremes when the effects of the Great Depression kicked in – Germany suffering more than most thanks to the clauses of the Versailles Treaty. The National Socialist party eventially came out on top, in no small part to some of the dirty tricks sanctioned by their leader Hitler, in I think the elections for the Reichstag in 1931.
#14 by James on April 27, 2012 - 8:18 pm
There’s a more general phenomenon here, I think: the rise of a conjoined economic left and social right. You see it in Le Pen’s attitude to Europe, sure, but you also see it with Geert Wilders’ position on austerity and the single currency (against both).
Just like the anti-nuclear stance referred to above, that does challenge a simplistic assessment of these characters as far-right, despite the racist crap they spout.
Closer to home, John Mason combines a social conservatism (see same-sex marriage) with a leftish economics (e.g. on tax).
#15 by Indy on April 27, 2012 - 9:20 pm
John Mason is quite socially conservative – but he would never in a million years back an idea as silly as banning lassies from wearing headscarves in school for the sake of imposing some weird conformity. Everything has to be seen in its context.
#16 by James on April 27, 2012 - 11:28 pm
No, I’m sure that’s true.
#17 by Barbarian on April 27, 2012 - 11:35 pm
Type your comment here
I didn’t say or try to imply that the SNP is extremist (even if one or two of their members are!). But I agree that many who voted for them have no desire for independence (and vice versa to placate a few people!).
In my view, extremist policies / political parties are those that the majority of voters would not consider supporting in normal circumstances. But if enough people suffer, then if you get the right political leader who can drive the policies through, then things change. I’ve studied the rise and fall of the Nazis for many years, as it is a fascinating lesson in who not to let into power. Hitler was frankly bloody useless as chancellor, and Germany would have gone bust again but for the war.
All political parties, regardless of political stance, only achieve popularity if they have a strong and charismatic leader who can also bind their party together. Salmond is a prime example.
But if an extremist party gets someone with Salmond’s abilities, then that is how they can rise to power.
It’s not France people should be looking at – it’s Spain.
#18 by Observer on April 28, 2012 - 2:57 pm
Agree with Malc that this is not the rise of fascism. Marine Le Pen took a lot of votes from former communist supporters because she has neatly captured the market whose view is that immigration was something encouraged by the ”elite” to drive down wages. That is a view very often expressed below the line on various English papers both left & right leaning. The Front National are not a far right party, neither in fact is the BNP. Their views on immigration are very right wing but their views on other issues are not. This is an interesting contrast to the far right in America who are consistently right wing about everything. The picture in Europe is a lot more confused.
#19 by Observer on April 28, 2012 - 3:05 pm
There is a tendency to just scream fascist or racist when confronted with a party like the Front National. For sure if I was French I could never vote for them because I am a conscious anti-racist, or anti-Islamophobe in this instance, & I despise their demonisation of muslims. However the fact is that when you put that to the side some of their policies are really quite attractive to working class people who don’t like capitalism. Opponents of the Front National need to take that on board.
#20 by Malc on April 28, 2012 - 3:35 pm
Interesting that it didn’t really take much to turn this into a discussion about the SNP and their governing style.
#21 by scottish_skier on April 28, 2012 - 7:30 pm
Yes, it seems at the moment even a discussion on the appropriate planting of runner beans inevitably somehow ends up on the SNP/constitutional question. But then we live in interesting times 😉
#22 by An Duine Gruamach on April 28, 2012 - 11:44 pm
Type your comment here
Some sort of a Tesco Tax, for instance?
#23 by James on April 28, 2012 - 11:49 pm
Or a range of other measures. The “Tesco Tax” was ill-thought-through and rather arbitrary by comparison, although it would have been better than nothing. Why are Ministers not doing anything like it now, when they could just make it happen? Because they don’t want to rock the unequal boat?
#24 by PMK on April 29, 2012 - 3:50 pm
Type your comment here
Hardly, it is simply another willful misinterpretation on your part!
Not following the policies that you, personally, wish to implement (in an ideal world) is hardly synonymous with being “right-wing”. In the situation in which the SNP leadership was placed, they would have had to be electorally suicidal to go against the rational choice scenario set out.
Your simple repetition of the nonsensical charge “right-wing leadership” gives it no additional weight or meaning. Nevermind your “comment” on Mason (#16)!