The coming French elections

by Chris Bertram on April 4, 2022

France is an odd place to be at the moment, because we are two weeks out from a very important Presidential election and you really wouldn’t know it on the street. The regulation posters are there, side-by-side, but otherwise postering and stickering is minimal: I’ve seen more from an obscure Marxist-Leninist sect than I have from the campaign favourite, Emmanuel Macron. And in the little town where I am, there were no campaigners at all at the Saturday market where I’ve seen people demonstrating for all kinds of political causes (most recently the anti-vaxxers) quite regularly.

The current situation is that Macron, the incumbent, is out in front and almost certain to qualify for the second round and that he is likely to joined by far-right candidate Marine Le Pen. The challenge from the ultra-right Eric Zemmour has faded badly, but it is just possible that Le Pen might be pipped by the far-left populist Jean-Luc Mélenchon of La France Insoumise. The traditional parties are nowhere with Anne Hidalgo, the Socialist Party candidate, heading for a derisory single-digit score. Yannick Jadot, the Green candidate, who to my mind is the most attractive candidate politically, will also get single digits. The overwhelming victor is likely to be abstention, as apathetic voters just stay at home.

While Macron is likely to get re-elected, the contest with Le Pen has unnerving echoes of Brexit and Trump-Clinton and the polls are tightening. In the past, the left would back anyone against the far right, but in 2022 I can’t see Mélenchon calling for a vote for Macron. So there is an outside chance that Le Pen will win and that France will have its first extreme-right government since Pétain, who didn’t have to win a popular vote. Moreover, it is possible that even with the Ukraine war in the background and with the massacres at Bucha and elsewhere fresh in the memory, a candidate with a history of association with Vladimir Putin could get elected. (And it isn’t just Le Pen: Mélenchon and Zemmour have Putin-friendly history as do a slew of politicians from Pécresse’s Les Républicains.)

So how did we get here? France is not a particularly badly governed country and it is one of the world’s richest, where people generally enjoy a high standard of living and have access to generous health and welfare benefits. But there is a sense that the country has stalled and that decay has set in. Macron promised a kind of elite managerialist renewal, bypassing the traditional parties and governing as a detached radical centrist. But he has not achieved all that much. His big pension reform stalled, a cost-of-living crisis was one of the elements behind the sometimes violent Gilets Jaunes protests, and he faced the same tough problem of negotiation COVID, lockdowns, and a vaccine programme that other Western politicians have faced.

France has also been gripped by some pretty rampant Islamophobia and somewhat irratinal anxiety about demographics and immigration. While it is hard to disentangle cause and effect, the major terrorist attacks at Nice, the Bataclan, the Charlie Hebdo assassinations and other murders have certainly fuelled this reaction. In the face of it centrist politicians have emphasised France’s secular and republican character and have doubled down on measures (such as anti-hijab laws) that increase the alienation and marginalization of France’s Muslims. The far-right’s Islamophobia and xenophobia has been echoed and legitimized by ministers at the heart of of centrist government who have also played “culture wars” against an imaginary enemy of Islamo-leftism lurking in the universities (think Critical Race Theory).

So here we are with the prospect of the far-right in power and all the implications that would hold for the European Union which might not survive a powerful anti-democratic enemy within one of its most important and populous countries. Hard not to to feel a real sense of trepidation as the clock ticks down.

{ 45 comments }

1

James McAnespy 04.04.22 at 12:10 pm

“But there is a sense that the country has stalled and that decay has set in.”

I would argue that this sense of decay has been felt in a great many former imperialist powerhouses, and their populations, filled with notions of exceptionalism have not been able to process the reality that they are just one nation in a world full of them. In response, they lurch to protectionist extremes, such as Hungary with Orban, Britain with Brexit, USA with Trump, and now potentially France.

2

TM 04.04.22 at 1:20 pm

Good point @1. Declining or already obsolete former imperial powers (Besides the one you mention I’d add Turkey) are the ones most at risk of backwards looking authoritarianism it seems.

I think Macron will like to have Le Pen as opponent. He’ll just have to campaign on her friendship with Putin (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/02/french-far-right-leader-marine-le-pen-forced-to-defend-putin-links). I don’t think she really has any better chance than last time, to the contrary, although I would also have expected Orban’s Putin proximity to hurt him and apparently it didn’t.

I admit don’t understand French politics at all, least of all the weakness of the left. The left hates Macron, why then would they stay home instead of supporting a left alternative? Of course Mélenchon’s narcissism. He made sure the left missed the runoff last election by sabotaging a unified candidacy. Now it is clear either Mélenchon or no left candidate. I wonder if people hate him even more than they hate Macron.

Apart from this I simply don’t understand why the French don’t seem to care about the Parliamentary election, which gives them a chance to protest Macron’s policies even if there’s no viable alternative for president.

3

afeman 04.04.22 at 2:47 pm

If pension reform is stalled, might it be to Macron’s benefit?

https://www.eschatonblog.com/2022/04/how-is-this-happening.html


We can’t always choose our fighters, and “the guy who announces loudly that he wants to raise the retirement age one month before an election” is not the best one!

I am not arguing Le Pen is about to win – I have no idea! – just making the point that if it’s important for centrist politicians to beat the fascists, they’d better act like it!

Macron’s hardly running as anti-fa, more like “I’m a xenophobic asshole too, and also I’ll raise your retirement age.”

Some general lessons here.

4

J-D 04.05.22 at 1:00 am

In the past, the left would back anyone against the far right, but in 2022 I can’t see Mélenchon calling for a vote for Macron.

Obviously this must make some difference, but it must be difficult to figure out how much difference. In 2017 Jean-Luc Mélenchon did not call for a vote for Emmanuel Macron in the second round; he did urge his supporters not to vote for Marine Le Pen. If he had called for a vote for Emmanuel, how much difference would it have made? if he had not urged his supporters not to vote for Marine, how much difference would that have made? What he did in 2017 he could do again in 2022, but then again he might not. In either case it has to be assumed that the effect will be different, because it has to be assumed that the first-round levels of support for candidates will not be identical, but how much different?

Apart from this I simply don’t understand why the French don’t seem to care about the Parliamentary election, which gives them a chance to protest Macron’s policies even if there’s no viable alternative for president.

How much chance is there of a National Assembly that does not have a pro-Presidential majority, and what would the effect be?

The left hates Macron, why then would they stay home instead of supporting a left alternative?

Just because people have in common that they are on the left doesn’t mean that they all support all the same things; people abstain from voting because there isn’t a candidate who offers what they want. Sure, some people (left or otherwise) will vote for a candidate who isn’t what they want in an effort to defeat a candidate they want even less. That’s my own general approach, and the one I think is sensible; but whether or not it’s the sensible approach, lots of people don’t adopt it. For example, in a run-off between Emmanuel and Jean-Luc, some left voters would abstain because, although Jean-Luc is clearly a left alternative to Emmanuel, he’s not the left alternative they want; and some of them would do this even despite wanting Emmanuel even less than Jean-Luc.

5

Brett 04.05.22 at 6:11 am

I still think Le Pen is going to get crushed. Macron’s not a sterling success, but he’s the devil most French voters who show up will know compared to the much worse Le Pen, and that will be enough.

Wild if she won, though. I don’t think she could possibly pull the equivalent of Orban in Hungary, but she could be far worse on immigration.

6

Tm 04.05.22 at 11:03 am

J-D „How much chance is there of a National Assembly that does not have a pro-Presidential majority, and what would the effect be?“

A strange question. It depends on how people decide to vote. In 2017, voters gave Macron a majority. They didn’t have to. In 2017 it was argued that voters backed Macron despite disagreeing with his neoliberal program because the alternative was Le Pen. But in the parliamentary election, voters again backed Macron (or stayed home) although they could have supported a range of opposition parties. Analysts have said that this is just how things are in France but that doesn’t explain why things are that way.

7

Rob 04.05.22 at 12:48 pm

https://crookedtimber.org/2022/04/04/the-coming-french-elections/#comment-817148 – Regarding your last paragraph J-D, this seems to be the Left’s problem with getting elected. The Right approach power in a simple way: “I will hold my nose and vote for this person, because they are on the Right, and if required I’ll stab them in the back later”. That is, they find a candidate, everyone votes for that candidate on the basis that they will get power, and then they have the arguments later. The Left prefer to have the arguments upfront, which means that you end up with the position that there are either many candidates, or that groups don’t vote for the single candidate because they don’t agree with them on absolutely everything, and therefore the Left doesn’t get elected in the first place.

8

TM 04.05.22 at 4:02 pm

Re J-D and Rob, actually, French voters who identify with the left can vote for a range of left parties for Parliament, they don’t have to settle on one party. That is the difference to the presidential election where the fractionation of the left guarantees no left candidate will be elected.

Now granted given the majoritarian election system, fractionation hurts in the parliamentary election as well, but one difference is that the right is also fractionated. Long story short, my point is that no French voter has an excuse for sitting out the Parliamentary election or for voting for a party whose policies they don’t actually support. That tired old tirade “but they are all the same” or “there is no real alternative” is just bullshit.

The implication is that I see no good reason to assume that French voters really would prefer more leftist policies if only they had the chance to vote for them. They do have that chance and the left simply doesn’t get even close to a majoritiy of votes. There seems to be a disconnect between what voters tell pollsters about their policy preferences and their actual voting record, and so far I haven’t seen a good explanation for that phenomenon.

9

Chris Bertram 04.05.22 at 4:39 pm

A good piece on the awfulness of Mélenchon (in French)

https://www.sauvonsleurope.eu/10-avril-melenchon-cest-non/

10

J-D 04.05.22 at 11:23 pm

A good piece on the awfulness of Mélenchon (in French)

https://www.sauvonsleurope.eu/10-avril-melenchon-cest-non/

I’m guessing that about 90% of the meaning of that survived Google Translate (I imagine ‘are cold in the back’ is a failed translation of a French idiom roughly corresponding to the English ‘sent a shiver down the spine’), and if so their case against him is clear enough, although I’d also like to imagine that in the unlikely hypothetical scenario of a second-round run-off where he’s the only alternative to Marine Le Pen, they’d still vote for him.

From what I’d read about him before I did wonder whether he might be an unattractive figure in roughly the way suggested, but I didn’t have enough information to be sure, so I appreciate the illumination. Thanks, Chris!

11

Ray Vinmad 04.06.22 at 6:15 am

“While it is hard to disentangle cause and effect, …”

Off topic but thank you for this caveat! Even if it is only circumscribing the xenophobia bit.

Maybe we don’t see this caveat often because people suppose it is obvious. We know there is a great deal of speculation in political analysis and at the same time we forget quickly how much of it is speculative.

The way people talk sometimes–as if we’ve got a perfect explanation! Then speculation leads to received wisdom, especially about recent scary trends– xenophobic authoritarians on the rise, democracies struggling.

We don’t have a great account for all this, let’s face it.

This whole ‘sense of decay’ thing, all the resentment, the inability of the left to get a purchase…It makes me wonder if people weren’t too quick to blame so much about the rise of fascism in the 30s on the Great Depression. Perhaps there was an X factor there as well. We can’t look to economic deprivation to explain what is happening now. Inequality might be a more likely candidate but how does everyone around the world somehow intuit that inequality is on the rise? Another possible X factor is propaganda skill building among the right wing, and their international coordination.

Anyway, it truly sucks.

12

TM 04.06.22 at 8:18 am

The article to may taste is a bit abstract and lofty and short on specifics. I guess that’s a requirement in French political discourse… The most damning part is Mélenchon’s cynical Ukraine stance. Depressing if 30% of voters support open fascists and the most popular left alternative is a nihilistic narcissist.

13

nastywoman 04.06.22 at 1:12 pm

The French election very sadly will be decided
by all these French –
who constantly are thinking about the –
what they believe –
‘negative’ value of free movement.

14

nastywoman 04.06.22 at 7:27 pm

and from the NYT –

‘More than any other presidential hopeful, Mr. Zemmour has embodied the effects of the right’s cultural battle on the campaign.

In his best-selling books and on his daily appearances on CNews, Mr. Zemmour over a decade became a leader of the new right-wing media ecosystem that painted France as being under an existential threat by Muslim immigrants and their descendants, as well as by the importation of multicultural ideas from the United States.

Though he has now receded in the polls, to about 10 percent support, Mr. Zemmour’s meteoric rise last year captured France’s attention and ensured that the presidential campaign would be fought almost exclusively on the right’s home turf, as he successfully widened the boundaries of what was politically acceptable in France.
Mr. Zemmour brought into the mainstream a racist conspiracy theory that white Christian populations are being intentionally replaced by nonwhite immigrants, said Raphaël Llorca, a French communication expert and member of the Fondation Jean-Jaurès research institute.

The “great replacement,” as the theory is called, was later picked up as a talking point even by Valérie Pécresse, the candidate of the establishment center-right Republican Party.

Such penetration into the mainstream is the result of a decade-old organizational effort by the right.

15

TM 04.07.22 at 8:37 am

“Though he has now receded in the polls, to about 10 percent support, Mr. Zemmour’s meteoric rise last year captured France’s attention and ensured that the presidential campaign would be fought almost exclusively on the right’s home turf”

Zemmour is an outspoken fascist and his “meteoric rise” as the NYT put it was manufactured by irresponsible media who provided him a platform in the first place, knowing full well that they were promoting fascism.

16

Stephen 04.07.22 at 6:33 pm

I should start by offering a qualified apology to Prof Bertram. When it was proposed by him and others that comments on CT posts would no longer be allowed, I voiced my suspicion that CB’s posts would allow no further comments. I was wrong. All praise to CB. I can only plead that I included the caveat that I might be quite wrong: not, I fear, something often stated on CT.

But also, CB writes of ”pretty rampant Islamophobia” gripping France. I’m not sure this is the right phrase. A phobia, as I understand it, is a terror of something greater than can rationally be justified. And as I understand it, Le Pen’s fear is not of Islam as such, but of the jihadist mentality of which CB does give some flagrant examples.

Would it not be fair to say that there are some (which is far from meaning all) aspects of Islam, as understood by some (wiiffma) Moslems which are completely incompatible with liberal democracy? And if so, what should be done?

And when CB writes of Le Pen threatening “the European Union which might not survive a powerful anti-democratic enemy”: well, in what sense would a fair and open election in France provide an “anti-democratic” result? As opposed to a result CB disliked?

And how far is the EU in fact democratic? Look up the Spitzenkandidat democratic system for electing the EU President, which produced a result that Berlin did not like and was immediately abandoned.

17

J-D 04.08.22 at 3:30 am

Would it not be fair to say that there are some (which is far from meaning all) aspects of Islam, as understood by some (wiiffma) Moslems which are completely incompatible with liberal democracy? And if so, what should be done?

As it is understood by some Muslims, Islam is illiberal and anti-democratic; as it is understood by some Christians, Christianity is illiberal and anti-democratic. The answer to the question of what should be done about this is to promote democracy. France is more democratic than the majority of countries in the world today, but it could be more democratic than it is, and it would be a good thing if French politicians strove to make it more democratic.

And when CB writes of Le Pen threatening “the European Union which might not survive a powerful anti-democratic enemy”: well, in what sense would a fair and open election in France provide an “anti-democratic” result? As opposed to a result CB disliked?

If a fair and open election was won by somebody who aimed to use the powers of the office they were elected to in order to limit, undermine, or destroy democracy, that would still be a democratic process but it would be an anti-democratic result.

And how far is the EU in fact democratic?

It could be more democratic than it is. It would be a good thing if European politicians strove to make it more democratic. From my limited understanding of the subject, I have the impression that it has become more democratic than it used to be, which would suggest that further progress in that direction is not a foolish hope.

18

MisterMr 04.08.22 at 6:47 am

@Stephen 17

I vaguely remembered that book so though a google search I found it in italian edition:
https://www.amazon.it/Sii-sottomesso-%C3%89ric-Zemmour/dp/8856646951

“Sii sottomesso: la virilità perduta che ci consegna all’Islam”

In english:

“Be submitted: the lost virility that gives us to Islam”

There is an obvious sexualisation of the issue, that IMHO screams of phobia, not rational discourse.

19

SusanC 04.08.22 at 10:40 am

“But also, CB writes of ”pretty rampant Islamophobia” gripping France. I’m not sure this is the right phrase.”

Well, yes. Islamophobia does not seem much like a phobia, and more like discrimination against outgroups, which is a rather different phenomenon.

The term probably arises by analogy from homophobia, which is possibly also not a phobia, but has a closer dynamic: the homophobe often has an anxiety that they might be gay themself, or at least perceived as such by others. Something similar sometimes at work in the trans debate, where the loudest “gender critical” voices are people who are gender variant but not self identifying as trans, and so under fear that they might be trans, or come to be regarded as such.

The anti-Muslim sentiment is not driven by people worrying that they might really be Muslims.

====

On the other hand, there’s argument that this is all driven by an anxiety about identity: gender identity, religious identity. The religious identity one is more of an anxiety about who “we ” are, rather than who “I” am,

20

nastywoman 04.08.22 at 11:48 am

and there are these (in)famous words from an American Idiot who once said:
‘France isn’t France’ anymore – and I have a (mainly) French Relative who dates the
moment where France wasn’t France anymore to the moment when McDonald’s came to France –
and to be honest –
if France survived the arrival of McDonalds in such ‘Excellante Frenchy Form’
there is no reason to believe that France couldn’t survive the arrival of more
‘Fureigners’ too –
as actually there are days where Disneyland Paris get’s pretty run over by ‘Asians’
and why aren’t do few French complain about Asians?

BE-cause there are so many Korean Barbicues in France and so many Sushi Restaurants on THE Cote?

AND as we spend one of our Christmas Dinners in a Indian Restaurant in Nice –
(and Nice is ‘nice’) – the French just have to get used (better) to the Fact that actually
the ‘Pre McDonald France’ isn’t the ‘Pre McDonald France anymore and can’t have your Hamberder if you don’t eat it too –
(mostly served by somebody – who unlike most ‘French’ – is willing to serve it – too) –

Capisce?
(which could remind US ALL – that we need to make sure that ITALY never ever becomes ‘Not Italy anymore!) and the Crazy Le Pen will NOT be ‘erected’ anyway -( as she not even has ‘a pénis’

21

Tm 04.08.22 at 1:18 pm

Is French Islamophobia rational? I wanted to mention this anyway. I remember well perhaps the most shameful episode of open Islamophobia that was totally accepted even by most of the liberal public in France 5 or 5 years ago: the Burqini ban.

Most of the French coastal areas enacted bans specifically prohibiting so-called Burqinis. Technically it is impossible to distinguish between that type of bull-body swimsuit and other kinds of swimwear, like wetsuits, without resorting to the presumed religion of the wearer as the defining criterion. So the ban was a priori religious discrimination. And most of the public supported it. The sight of presumably Muslim women having fun at the beach was considered intolerable by much of the public and the wearers were often insulted as terrorists and harassed by the police. I remember an episode of a group of Muslim women renting a private pool and organizing for a private beach party. Not only did they get death threats from the fascist side but the response of the official representative of the Republic, the Mayor, as I recall it, was to take the sides of the fascists, call the women wanting to have a party a security threat and pressured them to cancel their plan. As I recall it, after several months of unrestricted harassment of Muslim women, the French equivalent of the High Court stepped in and decided this really went too far.

Perhaps that answers part of the question, if indeed it was serious, raised in 16. To be fair, these events happened after Islamists committed a heinous terrorist attack in Nizza and the attack was explicitly raised as justification of the policy. But that only confirms that a large part of the French public is willing to treat entirely inoffensive citizens as suspected terrorists, and take oppressive measures against them – just because they look like Muslims.

22

Tm 04.08.22 at 1:22 pm

Is French Islamophobia rational? I wanted to mention this anyway. I remember well perhaps the most shameful episode of open Islamophobia in France 5 or 6 years ago: the Burqini ban.

Most of the French coastal areas enacted bans specifically prohibiting women from wearing so-called Burqinis. Technically it is impossible to distinguish between that type of bull-body swimsuit and other kinds of swimwear, like wetsuits, without resorting to the presumed religion of the wearer as the defining criterion. So the ban was a priori designed to discriminate against a religious minority. And most of the public supported it. The sight of presumably Muslim women having fun at the beach was considered intolerable and the wearers were often insulted as terrorists and harassed by the police.

I recall an episode of a group of Muslim women renting a private pool to organize a private beach party, announced as a burqini party. Not only did they get death threats from the fascist side but the response of the official representative of the Republic, the Mayor, as I recall it, was to take the side of the fascists, call the women wanting to have a party a security threat and pressured them to cancel their plan. As I recall it, after several months of unrestricted harassment of Muslim women, the French equivalent of the High Court stepped in and decided this really went too far.

Perhaps that answers part of the question, if indeed it was serious, raised in 16. To be fair, these events happened after Islamists committed a heinous terrorist attack in Nizza and the attack was explicitly raised as justification of the policy. But that only confirms that a large part of the French public is willing to treat entirely inoffensive citizens as suspected terrorists, and take oppressive measures against them – just because they look like Muslims.

23

Stephen 04.08.22 at 7:01 pm

J-D@17: absolutely agree with you. As it is understood by some Christians, (and I would insist, in some aspects), Christianity is illiberal and anti-democratic. In western Europe, those aspects are fairly thoroughly under control. I don’t think we still have a significant number of Catholics wanting to burn heretics alive, or Puritans wishing to impose a truly godly, Covenanted state. We do, however, have some Muslims wanting to kill unbelievers, or others who are the wrong sort of Muslim, and to the best of their ability doing so. I’m afraid that I don’t see how your answer that “what should be done about this is to promote democracy” is any use, since the basic problem about jihadists is that they have no time whatever for democracy. Other than the rule of those who agree with them.

I should perhaps add that there are some aspects of Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism (as understood by some …) that seem to me equally illiberal and anti-democratic. But Europe is not potentially troubled by the large-scale immigration of fundamentalist Jews, Buddhists or Hindus.

You also suggest that Marine Le Pen, if democratically elected, would aim “to use the powers of the office [she was] elected to in order to limit, undermine, or destroy democracy”. That may be so: what is your evidence for it?

SusanC@19: agreed, but worrying about identity isn’t an illogical fear.

Tm@21/22: I think I could easily distinguish between a wetsuit (designed to keep the wearer warm during exposure to cold Northern or deep waters) and a burkini, worn in waters that are neither cold nor deep, but to fit in with Islamic beliefs. Some of these beliefs (as understood by some …) involve the subjugation of women, the killing of Muslims who leave their religion, and the desirability of consigning those unbelievers who submit to Islam to an inferior status, and killing the rest. I wish there were some way of indicating “I an wearing a burkini to preserve my Islamic modesty, as I see it, but I want no part of the general Islamist package”. I’m not sure there is such a way.

24

nastywoman 04.09.22 at 7:30 am

and about the Burqini Ban -(or the – by 57.5% – successful Swiss referendum against the construction of new minarets) – nothing explains the troubling rise of the Crazy Right-Wing better.

As a lot of the Swiss – who were against the building of new minarets in Switzerland – weren’t against it because of some Islamophobic or any other religious reasons –
They were against it because of some very banal building codes – as they thought ‘minarets’ just don’t show the type of architecture, which fits into some local Swiss countryside – and whoever once has tried to built a ‘Modern Bauhaus ‘ in any medieval Germanic City knows about the problem.

BUT some people who didn’t know about such ‘cultural hang-ups’ liked to call it ‘Islamophobia’ – which made some simple and pretty much un-political ‘Denkmalschützer’ -(who had voted against the minarets) – sympathetic to some Crazy Right Wingers BE-cause they were ‘ant-minarets’ because entirely of Islamophobic reasons.

And so – the absurdity that somebody ON A FRENCH BEACH bathes fully dressed -bothered not only Islamophobic Right-Wingers but any French friends of mine who ever got fined on a California Beach sunning topless…
If y’all understand what I mean?

25

Matt 04.09.22 at 10:43 am

And so – the absurdity that somebody ON A FRENCH BEACH bathes fully dressed -bothered not only Islamophobic Right-Wingers but any French friends of mine who ever got fined on a California Beach sunning topless…
If y’all understand what I mean?

Well…I guess I don’t understand what you mean. Why would the fact that someone (supposedly…was this person in fact stupid?) got fined for topless sunbathing in California lead them to disfavor others from bathing fully dressed in France? I mean, that literally makes no sense at all. It’s either an absurd feeling of “something I didn’t like happened to me, so I’ll do something I don’t like to other people!” feeling, or else it’s…Islamophobic or otherwise xenophobic. This doesn’t seem hard to me at all.

26

SusanC 04.09.22 at 11:34 am

The race to the bottom of direly unpopular candidates continues.

It was a close run thing last time, with a great deal of the pro-Macron argument resting not so much on his positive qualities, but that his opponent is widely regarded as being effectively a neo-Nazi.

Since then, we’ve had growing anti-Macron sentiment, e.g. with the gilets jaunes protests, so he’s probably even less popular this time round.

On the other hand, Putin apologists on the right are also taking a hit to their popularity, due to the war in Ukraine,

Our western democracies are in a very poor state when elections are basically about which of the parties is hated least.

27

Tm 04.09.22 at 12:14 pm

„ and a burkini, worn in waters that are neither cold nor deep, but to fit in with Islamic beliefs“

So the justification for banning burqinis but not wetsuits is … the purported religious beliefs of the wearer. QED

https://edition.cnn.com/2016/08/26/europe/france-burkini-ban-court-ruling/index.html

„Officials say banning the burkini — worn mostly by Muslim women — is a response to growing terror concerns and heightened tensions after a series of terror attacks.“

The connection between burqinis and „terror concerns“ is just … obvious. This is totally mainstream everyday public discourse in France.

28

Tm 04.09.22 at 12:37 pm

https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2016/08/26/le-conseil-d-etat-suspend-l-arrete-anti-burkini-de-villeneuve-loubet_4988472_3224.html

L’ordonnance du Conseil d’Etat précise notamment que « l’arrêté litigieux a (…) porté une atteinte grave et manifestement illégale aux libertés fondamentales que sont la liberté d’aller et venir, la liberté de conscience et la liberté personnelle ».
It’s worth reading the whole thing.

I may be wrong but it does often seem that the reputation of the French for social progressivism is quite undeserved.

29

Tm 04.09.22 at 12:49 pm

Nastywoman one never knows whether you are serious. The minaret ban has nothing whatsoever to do with building codes. I’m sure you are aware that Building codes are under jurisdiction of the municipalities and not spelled out in the federal constitution.

Have you ever seen a woman wearing a burkini? It’s just a different kind of swimwear fashion. If your friends get worked up about „other“ women‘s unfamiliar fashion preferences, they are racists.

30

nastywoman 04.09.22 at 3:00 pm

‘I guess I don’t understand what you mean’.

Well? –
when this French friend of mine -(who once got a ticket on a California Beach for sunning topless) – came to Germany -(during the time of the Burqini ban) – and read by entering our local public swimming pool – that it was verboten to go swimming in any other dress than just some designated ‘swim wear ‘ -(because of hygiene reasons) – she somehow made a connection to the Burqini Ban AND her being fined for getting a ticket on a Californian Beach.

And this… connection somehow made her ‘disfavor others from bathing fully dressed in France’.

But I can’t tell y’all – if in her mind – that literally made no sense at all?
From a Hygienic perspective –
or ‘a cultural one’?
or why she actually still is NOT a Crazy French Right-Winger AND never will vote for Le Pen. (even if LePen would sunbath topless too – if you now know what I mean?)

31

SusanC 04.09.22 at 3:20 pm

“Eh bien là, les non-vaccinés, j’ai très envie de les emmerder.”

So, one of the open questions is, has he pissed off the vaccine sceptics sufficiently that they are going to vote for someone else, like Marine Le Pen?

(As I’m a Native British English speaker, with its usual tendency to polite understatement, I’m inclined to mentally gloss emmerder in this context as “cause them to be sufficiently angered that they will start throwing Molotov cocktails at the police”, but possibly Macron wasn’t going for British understatement here).

32

nastywoman 04.09.22 at 5:20 pm

and all I actually wanted to say: It’s quite unfortunate that Crazy Racist Right-Wingers
in France and everywhere else in Europe are so successful in making far too many people falsely believe, that it is just the Right-Wingers, who protect the peoples cultural identity.

33

Stephen 04.09.22 at 7:27 pm

Tm@27: I may not have made myself entirely clear. As I understand it, wearing a burkini (as distinct from a non-denominational wetsuit, which is quite different) may indicate either:
a) A woman’s adherence to Islamic codes of modesty, which would be very much her own business: or
b) A woman’s acceptance of a bundle of Islamist beliefs, including the righteousness of terror attacks on the despicable infidels, which are not at all compatible with liberal democracy. That would be very much other people’s business.
Trouble is, I can’t see how one can easily distinguish between them. Can you?

34

J-D 04.10.22 at 6:00 am

J-D@17: absolutely agree with you. As it is understood by some Christians, (and I would insist, in some aspects), Christianity is illiberal and anti-democratic. In western Europe, those aspects are fairly thoroughly under control. I don’t think we still have a significant number of Catholics wanting to burn heretics alive, or Puritans wishing to impose a truly godly, Covenanted state. We do, however, have some Muslims wanting to kill unbelievers, or others who are the wrong sort of Muslim, and to the best of their ability doing so. I’m afraid that I don’t see how your answer that “what should be done about this is to promote democracy” is any use, since the basic problem about jihadists is that they have no time whatever for democracy. Other than the rule of those who agree with them.

I don’t suppose you are doing it intentionally, but you are confusing two separate (although possibly related) questions.

The first question is ‘What should be done about the fact that some people have anti-democratic attitudes?’ This is the question to which I suggested the response ‘Make the system more democratic’: not because I expect this, by itself, to produce mass conversion experiences, but because the more democratic the system is the harder it will be to undermine democracy. Perhaps there will always be some people with some anti-democratic attitudes, but the more democratic the system is, the less of a problem will be caused by those people and their attitudes.

I note that you have suggested no response to this question.

The second question is ‘What should be done about the fact that some people want to commit murder?’ To this question, I suggest the response: ‘Foster changes in society that discourage positive attitudes towards violence and that encourage negative attitudes towards violence.’ There are, I am sure, people far more knowledgeable and therefore better equipped than I am to make suggestions about specific measures of this kind, although I could make a few gestures in the direction of the kind of measure that might be worth investigating. One general point I would make is that the greater the inequality in society, the more it creates motives for violence: therefore, reducing social inequality, as well as having other benefits, is also likely to make society less violent.

There is evidence about which are the most common forms of violence: it is not the case that religiously motivated violence ranks among the most common forms of violence (or among the most common forms of lethal violence in particular). Encouraging people to focus their attention on religious motivations for violence is dangerously counterproductive.

I note that you have suggested no response to this question, either.

I should perhaps add that there are some aspects of Judaism, Buddhism and Hinduism (as understood by some …) that seem to me equally illiberal and anti-democratic. But Europe is not potentially troubled by the large-scale immigration of fundamentalist Jews, Buddhists or Hindus.

Europe is not potentially troubled by the large-scale immigration of fundamentalist Muslims.

You also suggest that Marine Le Pen, if democratically elected, would aim “to use the powers of the office [she was] elected to in order to limit, undermine, or destroy democracy”. That may be so: what is your evidence for it?

I would prefer to believe that you are not deliberately misrepresenting me but have simply read carelessly.

Chris Bertram suggested that if Marine Le Pen wins government in France, she will be a powerful anti-democratic enemy to the EU.

You quoted Chris Bertram and asked how the outcome of an open and fair election could be anti-democratic.

I quoted your question, including the embedded reference to what Christ Bertram had written, to answer your question in general terms without asserting anything about Marine Le Pen specifically. The applicability of what I wrote (as opposed to what Chris Bertram wrote) to the specific question about Marine Le Pen is this: if Marine Le Pen is elected President, and if she then uses the powers of the Presidency to limit, undermine or destroy democracy, then that will ben an anti-democratic result from a democratic process. (On the other hand, if Marine Le Pen is elected President, and if she does not then use the powers of the Presidency to limit, undermine or destroy democracy, then that will not be an anti-democratic result.)

If you want to explain your basis for supposing that a hypothetical President Marine Le Pen would not use her Presidential powers to limit, undermine or destroy democracy, then you would be disagreeing with an assertion which was advanced by Chris Bertram, not by me.

SusanC@19: agreed, but worrying about identity isn’t an illogical fear.

Short of something like the fantasy scenario imagined in George Orwell’s description of the Ministry of Love, it’s not possible for somebody else to alter my identity against my will. Under current circumstances, it’s not sense to worry about it.

I may not have made myself entirely clear. As I understand it, wearing a burkini (as distinct from a non-denominational wetsuit, which is quite different) may indicate either:
a) A woman’s adherence to Islamic codes of modesty, which would be very much her own business: or
b) A woman’s acceptance of a bundle of Islamist beliefs, including the righteousness of terror attacks on the despicable infidels, which are not at all compatible with liberal democracy. That would be very much other people’s business.
Trouble is, I can’t see how one can easily distinguish between them. Can you?

There is no reason why it matters. Banning burkinis will not reduce the likelihood of people believing that terror attacks on the despicable infidels are righteous; if anything, the reverse.

35

nastywoman 04.10.22 at 6:49 am

@32
‘Trouble is, I can’t see how one can easily distinguish between them. Can you?’

Well –
as I wrote -(kind of) – if you can’t distinguish between a woman sunning topless (because she grew up on ‘the Cote’) and a woman wearing all kind of cloth (because she grew up in Kairo) you might be one of these Crazy Right Wingers, who vote for Le Pen -(or Trump) and believe that sunning topless is ‘immoral’?

36

nastywoman 04.10.22 at 7:01 am

and as the Bikini –
probably? –
was one of the utmost powerful ‘political… things in order to free a lot of people -(of Egypt) not only from ‘Burkinis’ – One day a Burkini -(or Bikini) might NOT be misunderstood as any type of ‘political thing’ – anymore – and the French can stop voting for Crazy Racist Right Wingers – because of IT?

37

SusanC 04.10.22 at 6:34 pm

Over here in the U.K., the government is working on legislating against conversion therapy. One of the finding that drives this is that adults identities are highly fixed and unlikely to change. Therapies aimed at making gay people straight just don’t work, and trans adults are also unlikely to change.

Which is some way makes it even more odd that there should be such an anxiety over identity (TERFs taking exception to transgendered people, the objections to headscarf’s and burkinis etc.) Your own identity is just not that likely to be changed by whether or not the government bans headscarf’s, or transgender people in restrooms,

38

SusanC 04.10.22 at 6:44 pm

Alternatively consider Mary Douglas’s Cultural Theory of Risk. Among other things, the observation that risks are massively overestimated if they relate to a way of life that is disappearing. Your actual risk of being killed by an Islamic terrorist is pretty low, but is overestimated due to its (non rational) connection to an anxiety over social change. These aren’t phobias exactly.

But whatever they are, they seem to be a big factor in populist politics.

39

J-D 04.11.22 at 12:55 am

First-round results are being reported.

Comparing current estimates (with most of the vote cast) to the first round in 2017, the biggest change is the drop in the vote for the candidate of The Republicans: 20.0% last time, 4.8% this time. Where did their vote go?

Éric Zemmour got 7% as the candidate of Reconquête, which did not exist in 2017. Where did that vote come from?

The candidate of the Socialists got 1.7%, compared to 6.4% in 2017. However, in 2017 EELV (Europe Écologie Les Verts, or Europe Ecology–The Greens) did not offer their own candidate but instead entered into an electoral alliance with the Socialists. This time they offered their own candidate, who got 4.5% of the vote, so the aggregate vote for the two parties was almost unchanged (although by itself this is not enough evidence to conclude that there is a simple explanation in terms only of Socialist voters switching to EELV).

For the three leading candidates, the aggregate changes were smaller: but given the other changes, they must have had significant inflows and outflows. They all made nett gains of between two and four percentage points, but given the collapse in support for the Republicans that is unsurprising (although, again, that’s not enough to establish that there is a simple explanation for their gains in terms of switching Republican voters). Emmanuel Macron increased from 24.0% to 27.6%, Marine Le Pen from 21.3% to 23.6%, and Jean-Luc Mélenchon from 19.6% to 21.7%.

40

John Quiggin 04.11.22 at 4:06 am

Overall, fairly promising results, compared to those that seemed likely at the time of the OP. Only Zemmour has advocated a second-round vote for Le Pen. All the mainstream candidates, including Pecresse, have supported Macron and Melenchon has urged “ne faut pas donner une seule voix à Marine Le Pen”

If everyone “followed the party ticket”, Macron would beat Le Pen with a margin comparable to that of 2017. That’s unlikely, but he has to be a strong favorite to win, unless events upset things.

41

John Quiggin 04.11.22 at 4:08 am

Melenchon used much the same words in 2017

42

J-D 04.11.22 at 6:14 am

Thinking somewhat further ahead:
The Republicans and the Socialists were still able to dominate the French regional elections last year; the RN performed strongly in some regions but was well behind nationally, and LREM and LFI were also-rans. Admittedly in interpreting this it’s important to recognise that turnout was at less than half the level of the current Presidential election, but it still seems like an indicator that in a future Presidential election where Emmanuel Macron is no longer a candidate, his support cannot be relied on to transfer to another candidate of his party/movement and that the decline of the traditional parties is still reversible. The results of last year’s departmental elections also seem to indicate something similar.

43

roger gathmann 04.11.22 at 12:04 pm

Only two weeks, so I doubt scandals will explode, though there is one on the stove that puts the scandal about alexandre benalla in the shadow. It involves the head of L’institut Montaigne (I hate that name, as it is a gross insult to Montaigne), whose position papers at least on education have become Macron government’s position, especially through his education minister, Jean-Michel Blanquer. Long and short is, the head of the think tank, Laurent Bigorgne, was arrested for slipping ecstasy into the drink of his ex sister in law and “collaboratrice” at the Institute. In his defense, Bigorgne, who denies any sexual intent (!) claims he is just your average cokehead, and the cocaine made him do it. When he was arrested, who called him up at the police station but the education minister, Blanquer? Liberation’s enquete last week is quite scathing. Unfortunately, you can’t read it all online unless you are a subscriber, but a summary is here – https://www.marieclaire.fr/laurent-bigorgne-affaire-drogue-proces,1424345.asp

44

nastywoman 04.11.22 at 4:04 pm

no big surprise here with a few bets won against Crazy Right Winger who were betting on Le Pen winning at least the first round – and now WE ALL can take a HUUUGE breath of relief that the Crazy Racist Right Wingers will NOT take over France either –
and France will stay the beautiful France -(with all its Mc Donalds and other flaws) –
we ALL LOVE and enjoy – MERCI!

Right?

45

lathrop 04.12.22 at 12:10 am

“France will stay the beautiful France” – – oh let’s hope so!
My daughter is studying at Jean Monnet University in St. Etienne and seeks French citizenship, valuing it above the U.S. I cannot quibble with that impulse.

Comments on this entry are closed.