Thomas is an assistant professor of French and Francophone
studies.
By Dominic Thomas
I am appalled by the broader implications of Ben Shapiro’s
column (“Le
Pen’s ranking shows nation’s true colors,”
Viewpoint, April 29), and felt compelled to contribute to the
discussion on this topic.
While the recent outcome of the first round of the French
presidential elections is profoundly disquieting, closer scrutiny
of the particular socio-political circumstances of this election
reveal that the outcome was not as “surprising” as one
may think. Having said this, I am inclined to find the first round
results rather encouraging, as the recent mobilization of voters
has demonstrated.
Chirac received 19.88 percent of the vote, Le Pen 16.86 percent,
and Jospin 16.18 percent. The combined vote on the right (including
Chirac, Bayrou, Madelin, Lepage, Brutin) was 33.7 percent. On the
left, (including Jospin, Chevènement, Mamère, Hue and
Taubira) it was 32.45 percent. Other voters from the extreme left
(Laguiller, Besancenot, Gluckstein) and the extreme right (Le Pen,
Mégret), and Saint-Josse accounted for 33.87 percent of the
vote.
Therefore, almost 80 percent of French voters voted for neither
Le Pen nor his former Front National partner, Mégret. While Le
Pen has been politically active since 1974, his following has not
grown significantly in recent years. In the 1995 elections, for
example, he received 15 percent of the vote.
A number of important factors (much more complex than the
American phenomenon known as the “Nader factor”) worked
together in the recent election, thereby allowing Le Pen to
eliminate Jospin’s bid for the presidency. These factors
include 28 percent of eligible voters not voting. Votes were
divided among 16 candidates running for the presidency, a
staggering increase of nine since the 1995 elections; and
disenfranchised, disillusioned and primarily younger voters,
expressing their sentiments by voting for the plethora of marginal
candidates, rather than supporting current President Chirac, or the
Prime Minister and Socialist candidate, Jospin.
Shapiro’s statement that “not all of Le Pen’s
platform is completely unjustified,” is absolutely
despicable. Le Pen’s anti-Semitic remarks and anti-immigrant
(read North African) discourse are to be denounced, unambiguously,
for what they are. Mr. Shapiro’s invocation of “mass
immigration of North Africans” is completely unfounded, and
recuperates Le Pen’s own age-old fear mongering according to
which immigration figures can somehow be equated with unemployment
statistics.
France has a long history of immigration and, contrary to
popular myth, has not emerged from some kind of unbroken tradition
of Frenchness. Furthermore, France has a complicated history of
contact with North Africa, and particularly with Algeria since it
successfully liberated itself from French colonial exploitation
during the war of 1956-1962. France already has very strict
immigration and citizenship laws in place, and anti-immigration
policies are more specifically linked to confused notions of French
ethnic purity.
Finally, it is simply inaccurate to characterize the French as
anti-American. Yes, in a country that embraces America in so many
ways (fashion, cinema, rap, hip-hop and so forth), it is true that
there has been opposition for some time now to
“coca-colonization” and to the “imperialism of
Mickey Mouse,” and that France’s insistence on
protecting the “French exception” in the cultural realm
is itself problematic in its hegemonic anti-multiculturalist
agenda. And yes, France has been the site of some of the
progressive, innovative and imaginative examples of
anti-globalization. But opposition to America has more to do with
foreign policy and global capitalism, the recent rejection of the
Kyoto agreement, America’s unaccountability in the legal
domain (read International Criminal Court of Justice), and the
simple conclusion of many French intellectuals that terms such as
“humanitarian intervention” and “collateral
damage” are inadequate in justifying military actions in the
name of “freedom” and “democracy.”
France, one should not forget, has every right to function as an
autonomous sovereign state, and is not compelled to align itself
with America’s foreign policy agenda. France’s own
experience with terrorism precedes America’s recent encounter
by many decades. Indeed, one should not forget the first cry that
came to America across the Atlantic on Sept. 11.: “Nous
sommes tous américains” (We are all Americans).
On April 21, Le Pen and his Front National may have achieved
their best result in a French election, but paradoxically, I
believe this “victory” has assured his own demise, as
people have organized on the streets, in the media, and in
cyberspace to reject his fascist and racist discourse. On May 5,
the majority of French people will speak loud and clear with a
resounding affirmative vote for Chirac, not so much for what he
stands for, but rather for what the people stand against in Le
Pen.
One can only hope that this voice will be heard loud and clear
across Europe, mobilize voters to take action against entrenched
fascist and racist leaders and politicians in other countries, but
perhaps also remind American voters of all generations that votes
are not just counted, but do in fact count.
On June 9 and 16, French people will also have the opportunity
to ensure the enaction of a new round of power sharing and
cohabitation as they vote in the parliamentary elections. France
has always responded favorably to any kind of “crisis”
““ this latest one may be just what it takes to revitalize its
electoral process and raise the political consciousness of young
people that once, in the spring of 1968, provided the paradigm for
political commitment around the world.