The working class gets its own back France: Laurent Carasso, a trade union activist and a leading member of the Ligue Communiste Révolutionnaire (LCR, French section of the Fourth International) looks at the implications of the 'No' vote. NON! 18 The French referendum result - a resounding 'No to the European constitution - created a political shock in France and in Europe. In spite of the commitment of the biggest parties of Right and Left to the campaign for the 'Yes, the rejection was definitive - 55 percent of those who voted. The most spectacular aspect of the vote was its class character: 80 percent of manual workers, 70 percent of white collar workers, more than 60 percent of voung people voted No'. This No was the direct expression of the social and political crisis that the country has been going through for years. Previously this was expressed as abstention or the punishment of governing parties. It is the kind of punishment that Jospin, then Socialist Prime Minister, suttered in the presidential election of 2002. The same thing happened in 2004 at theregional and European elections, a disaster for the nghtwing UMP and UDF under the government of UMP member Rattarin. The unprecedented aspect of this vote on the constitutional treaty is that the electors were able to vote against all the parties, whether of Left or Right. responsible for neo-liberal policies. It was the working class getting its own back. which crystallised a profound social discontent. It is hardly surprising, since successive governments have openly made the link between their attacks on social weltare and the European Union. But both the right and the Socialist Part! underestimated leadership the strength of the rejection. And it follows a decade of resistance. For ten tears, in France, as in the other countries of the European Union, the noo-liberal attacks have been piling public threatening up. services, social protection and secure employment. From the general strike in 1995 against the Tuppé Plan to reform health insurance. to the attacks on pension rights in 2003, and then further attacks on health insurance. But none of these has been adequately answered by the organised trade union movement. To these questions of global social policy have been added, over the last few months, continung mass lay-ofts and workplace closures and the inexorable rise in the number of unemployed, who are subjected to reduced benefits. The first warning to the establishment that all was not as it seemed. was the failure of Jospin to make the second round in the Presidential election in 2002, with the far lett gaining 10 percent. In 2003 there was a powertul strike movement against the Rattarin government's pension retorms, although this movement was defeated. In 2004. the countr was covered with a network of collectives - albeit their eltorts were unsuccessful- against the government's attacks on health insurance. A false impression? The regional elections of April 2004 gave a talse impression of the situation. Without a really dynamic campaign, the Socialist Party (SP) and its traditional allies, the Greens and the Communists (PCF). had been the beneficiaries ot an overwhelming vote aimed at punishing the Right, giving social democracy control of trent-one out of twenty-three regions Despite a united campaign, the far Left (LCR and Lutte Ouvriere) found itselt weakened, dropping below 5 percent of the vote. Some people saw this as proof that traditional politics had reasserted itselt, after the protest vote of 2002. and that the social-liberal Lett might get hack into oflice. Rather, it showed that the vote for the SP was a vote against the right. not a positive vote for social democracy: Nor did it represent a marginalisation of the far I.ett. A campaign patiently built From the start, in the summer of 2004, the Copemic Foundation' look the initiative ot launching a broad appeal for the rejection c: the Constitution on a left basis. for a 'social and internationalist No'. This appeal made it possible, from the autumn onwards. ! build many united front collectives. The LCR committed itself to building these. I: addition, this Appeal of the 200 involve. the French Communist Party (PCF), militar: of PRS ('For a Social Republic, a club :: the SP around Jean-Luc Mélenchon), MAR: (a current from the Citizens Movement .: Jean-Pierre Chevènement), a minority of C.. Greens, plus militants from the trade une:. and various associate: -
There were two real turning points in the First there was the internal referendum of the Socialist Party, in December, in which Laurent Fabius, the part's number two, finally came out for the from a convinced social-liberal, decision, who had supported all previous EU treaties. surprised many people: was it perhaps a tactical position, looking towards the 2007 presidential election? Yes: but Fabius also had a sharper understanding than his colleague Hollande of popular resentment against nen-liberal Europe. The vote in the SP - only s" percent for the "Yes' - resulted in a clearer commitment of the minority currents of the SP to the campaign, although Fabius was unable to identify with the radical campaign of the Appeal of the 200°. The PCF, which had heen awaiting the outcome of this vote. now committed itself to the united front collectives. ATTAC came out without hesitation for the 'No', as did the Peasant Confederation. Both these are taken very seriously by intellectual lavers and better-off sections of the working class and their decision had a big impact on the left, because Hollande and Daniel Cohn- Bendit of the Greens tried to present the 'Yes' as an 'intelligent, open vote, compared to the 'No - fearful and frustrated'. The trade union movement At the beginning, the CGT and CFDT were caught up with the European Trade Union Confederation (ETUC). were tempted to support European Constitution Treaty against the attitude ol' a large majority of militants. That blocked the situation both in the main teachers' federation, the FSU, and in the Union Solidaires (including the SUD unions). Although these (wo organisations had taken a clear position of rejection of the Treaty, there was continuing resistance in their ranks to a real commitment to the 'No' campaign, reinforced by the CGT's attitude. Fortunately, the CGT finally came out by 81 votes against 18 for a No. This was the second decisive element of the campaign, which allowed the •No from the left to solidly establish itself. In the first months of 2005, the referendum became the central political question in the country. All the social questions strengthened the 'No': the debate over outsourcing. the mobilisation against the Bolkestein directive. a short-lived national mobilisation over wages in March, the protest morement of school students opposed to a reform of the baccalauréat, designed to undermine the school system, leading to greater social discrimination And last but not least the attack on the 33- hour week by liberalising overtime quotas. and especially the government's decision to abandon the Whit Monday holiday. Faced with the strength of the No, throughout whole of the media newspapers, radio and television - conducted a partisan campaign for the Yes, caricaturing the 'No'. They predicted chaos would ensue and France would be outlawed by the rest of the EU if the vote went against ratification. Jacques Chirac intervened three times on television, throwing his full weight into the balance. All to no avail! The campaign was dominated by the No from the left: which mobilised more than 200,000 united front meetings. Whereas in the autumn of 2004. the leaders of the 'No' on the right, like Philippe De Villiers, often held centre stage and marked the campaign with their opposition to Turkey joining the EU, in the spring these themes were marginalized, as was the very discreet campaign of the National Front, which only held a few meetings. In the first months of 2005, the referendum became the central political question in the country Crisis of legitimacy and denial of democracy he referendum result has sharply T revealed the weakness of the social base of the parties of Right and Left. Whereas 92 percent of French MPs and senators voted in favour of the Constitution. 55 percent of electors rejected it, creating a crisis of legitimacy for Chirac and for the Chirac's contempt for democracy was shown by his response. In 2003, Raffarin said to the millions of workers occupying the streets against the pensions reform: 'It is not the street that governs! Today Chirac says, 'It is not the ballot box that governs! That can only further delegitimise parliamentary and clectoral institutions. May 29 did not change the social relationship of forces and the government is launching fresh attacks. But the class character of the 'No' vote poses a direct challenge to the trade union movement. It is evidence of a readiness to mobilise on fundamental social questions, evidence that the trade union leaderships have up to now refused to adequately build on. This situation reinforces the urgency of uniting actions by the militant forces in the CGT. the FSU and Solidaires. A new anti-capitalist force The forces of the No from the left are faced with a political challenge. The spokespersons of the PCF and of the SP minorities have already declared that they will not build a radical pole of attraction' and that they want to reunify the 'No from the left with the 'Yes from the left', to unite all the left for the general elections of 2007: yet everything indicates that the SP will remain within the framework of neo-liberalism. The heart of the contradiction on the left is now to be found within the PCF. This party has found fresh vigour in the campaign. It was the dominant force in many rallies and meetings. There are no new waves of recruitment. especially young people, but the allong "Communist people' - many with grey or white hair - have woken up. That still means tens of thousands of militants. And it has awoken on a combative, anti neo-liberal orientation that is opposed to the leadership of the SP. To be more precise, the PCF leadership maintained two parallel lines in the campaign: a sharp denunciation of neo-liberalism, but at the same time endeavouring to renew links with the 'Yes from the left, with a view to a parliamentar! and governmental majority. PCF leader Marie- George Buffet kept repeating the idea that there is one Left, from the SP to the LCR, and it was necessary to reunify it! The broadest unity against the MEDEF (the bosses organisation) and the Right is necessary, but the question is now posed for tens of thousands of Communist militants: in the present balance of forces, where the left party machines and institutions are dominated by social-liberalism - including the No' of Fabius - can we rebuild a new Union of the Left' on an orientation imposed by the leadership of the SP? Or do we have to build another alliance, in the dynamic of the 'No from the left' - an alliance that really opposes neo-liberalism and capitalism? This is the question that the LCR will ask the PCF in particular, but it will also ask sectors ot the social movements, lett sectors of the Socialist Party and the Greens. There is also debate on the way forward in the collectives for the No vote. LCR will propose united front actions and objectives, against the programme of the new government and of the Right, in defence of jobs, labour legislation and wages. But the question is also posed here of a political alternative, an anti-capitalist programme that breaks with the law of profit. The No was a decisive moment of the political struggle. It embodied not only elements of refusal, but also the first elements of'a response, demands, debate and hope. Now we have to deepen our analysis and bring forward global propositions, without dividing the movement. a movement that contains the militants and currents who could form the basis of a new anti-capitalist force. A longer version of this article can be found in IT Online, IV369 - July-August 2005 19