One of the things that struck me most when reading the excellent book La Meute, which meticulously describes the sect organized around Jean-Luc Mélenchon, is the total lack of interest on his part, and that of his lieutenants, in political programs. Admittedly, and I have often given him credit for this, LFI does have a program; and, however far it may be from my own convictions, it has the merit of being very thorough on many subjects that few other parties talk about, such as the economy of the sea or the French-speaking world. However, reading this book, we discover that the leaders of this party have, in reality, delegated the programmatic work to foot soldiers who are not part of the leadership; and that never, at any point, did the countless differences and endless discussions between them focus on programmatic or even ideological issues, but always on the one question that seems to obsess Mélenchon and that the others seem to fear: how to ensure everyone’s allegiance to the leader?
It is no better elsewhere: in the Socialist Party, the “contributions” competing for the next congress merely promise that ‘we’ should get down to drafting a presidential program as soon as possible, that “we” should develop industry, agriculture, and services, and protect the social model. Without putting any figures on it; and not a word in any of their contributions about immigration. On the right, on the contrary, the outlines of reform, when they exist, talk only about immigrants and the various ways of getting rid of them. No one, on either the left or the right, is assessing the costs and consequences of the promises they are making on the fly. No one, on either the left or the right, is putting forward a coherent presidential program. No one, on either the left or the right, is even offering an in-depth diagnosis of French society. Even less so do they offer a vision of historical dynamics, new challenges, ecology and technology, or France’s place in Europe and the world of tomorrow. And those parties that claim to be working on this, but will only reveal their plans at the last minute, are either lying or despising voters, who want to debate at length right now the various options that will be available to them.
With two years to go before the next presidential elections, we are still in a theater of shadows. And it is likely that we will remain there. This is tragic.
The parties are not the only ones to blame. Political commentators who are only interested in who will be a candidate without ever bothering to ask those who are rushing to join the race or assert themselves as candidates whether they have assessed the state of the country, whether they have any idea where they would like to see it in 20 years’ time, whether they have a program, let alone a cost estimate for that program.
Once again, as has been the case since the 1995 presidential election, if not since 1988, voters will have no choice but to choose between individuals with last-minute, improvised programs and no credible vision or ambition. The far right will dig in its heels on its opposition to immigration and pension reform. The right will join the far right on immigration and talk about Europe. The social-democratic left will talk about tax justice and the environment. Meanwhile, the far left will talk only about additional taxes and its rejection of Islamophobia.
A candidate elected on either of these platforms will do nothing useful, because history teaches us that a French president can only act seriously during the first three months of his term, which assumes that he comes to power with a serious, comprehensive, and detailed program.
All of this stems from a deeply held belief among almost all of the so-called French elites, both in Paris and in the provinces: the country is not doing so badly; it is very rich, and nothing can seriously affect it; politicians must not do too much, because they can only make things worse; the time is no longer for utopias or programs, but for the instinctive reactions of a leader faced with increasingly unpredictable events.
The reality is quite different: the country is in very bad shape. Worse than any other country in the European Union. For the first time in centuries, the standard of living of Italians, in terms of purchasing power parity, has become higher than that of the French. The Spanish, Portuguese, and Greeks have lower deficits than the French, who do not work enough. Inequalities are widening. The time has come for a general mobilization for the economy of life.
If nothing radical is done, young French people will soon be worse off than their elders. The general standard of living in the country will decline. France will not be able to maintain its social model. Nor even its democracy.
All this is due to the harmful collusion of cynical politicians, media outlets seeking ratings, and increasingly individualistic citizens who are disappointed by thirty years of inaction.
It is becoming very urgent to realize this and take action. To this end, each party should undertake four urgent tasks as soon as possible:
- An uncompromising and objective assessment of the country’s dramatic situation. There is no shortage of sources for this, with reports from the IMF, the OECD, UNESCO, and numerous academics and research centers around the world. This assessment should be shared by all.
- A description of the France we want to see in 2040.
- An action plan for 2027-2032 to put France in a position to achieve this ideal.
- A cost estimate for this plan.
We will then realize the immensity of the reforms needed to avoid the worst.
Once this is available, the French people will be able to begin serious debate and choose the person best placed to implement this plan.
Of course, this is unlikely to happen, except perhaps through some kind of cross-party movement of goodwill (such as www.francepositive.fr).
And yet, we can, and must, still dream.