An
interview with Kostas Vergopoulos, Professor of Economics, University
of Paris for the tvxs.gr website
by Katrin
Alamanou
Was
the percentage of the National Front in French local elections the expected one? Many media are speaking about "historic"
results.
It was
expected. However, it was not as big as announced. In the area of
Paris, the most populated electoral area of the country, with about
12 million people, Marine Le Pen's National Front, despite its rise,
did not exceed 6%.
In South and
North France, however, a rise was recorded. In North France a mayor
was elected with 50%. In four or five cities of South its percentage
was 40-45%. This is a success for the National Front, but in national
level it was not so successful. In France, the National Front's total
percentage was 4.7% while the percentage of the Right was 47% and the
percentage of the Left was 37%. The Left lost in total 8 percentage
units, while the Right gained 3.5% and the far-Right 7.5%. What
should concern us is not only the rise of the far-Right, but also the
fall of the Left, especially that of Socialists, but also the
stagnation of the so-called Left of the Left, especially under
Mélenchon.
How do
you interpret the rise of the far-Right?
First of all
we should examine from where the National Front took voters because
on the other hand, the percentage of the Right was increased.
François Hollande thus Socialists, far-Left with less than 0.5%, as
well as Mélenchon's party with 6% while in past years received
11-12%, are the ones who lost. Communist party performance could not
be seen because it was hidden inside Hollande's Socialist party
coalition. This coalition, however, did not gain what was expected.
Given that the percentages of Hollande's Socialists as well as Mélenchon's
Leftists fell, we could say that we have a turn to the Right
expressed by the percentages of Le Pen's far-Right National Front, as
well as of the Right party.
Are
the causes of the rise of National Front different from that of the
rise of far-Right parties in Europe generally?
They are
part of the same phenomenon, which is observed in the whole Europe.
The way that the far-Right treats Socialists is characteristic
because it's viewing them as representatives of the establishment,
not as Left. Or rather denounce the Left as representative of the
establishment, adopting the stance of the far-Left against
Socialists, but appears to be more capable to persuade the electoral
body.
But
Mélenchon's Left doesn't also identify Socialists as representatives
of the establishment?
This is
true, but Mélenchon is not gaining votes. Le Pen also identify the
Right and the Socialists as establishment (mostly Socialists) and
manages to persuade voters on this.
So,
why only Le Pen gains votes?
The Left -
but also the Right - never understood the reason of the existence of
the National Front. They are only accusing it as fascist, nazist,
racist and nationalist "exorcising" it through this way.
However, they didn't try to examine deeply the views of this party in
order to understand why it attracts voters.
The basic
characteristic - and this is common for the whole Europe - is the
slogan according to which the country should get out from the Europe
of monopolies. If someone doesn't know who is speaking, listening
these views, would think that the Left is speaking. Additionally, Le
Pen speaks about the regaining of national sovereignty. Her political
career is based on these things.
Why
Mélenchon's Left doesn't attract votes from French citizens who see
that Europe is the problem?
Because Left
does not clarify its position for Europe and this results to Le Pen's
success who uses demagogy in the absence of a different point of
view. In essence, she monopolizes the part of the popular
disaffection against the negative course of the European matters and
she does not participate in the discussion to change Europe, but
instead, she tries to ruin it by putting in front a nostalgia of
return to some national sovereignty of the past that never existed in
essence.
I don't
support that the country should leave the European Union. However,
many of those that Le Pen says, and are definitely serious but
particulary contradictory, should be answered and reconsidered. For
example, she declares the reduce of taxation. Her voters agree, but
they don't understand that through the tax reduction, social benefits
for the poorest will be reduced as well. These things were not
explained by the Left to give an answer against the rhetoric of the
far Right.
I would say
that in the whole Europe, far-Right parties exploit the sense of loss
of national sovereignty. And this because economy has been paralyzed,
gradually or rapidly, unemployment rise everywhere and the state is
absent. The state does not intervene since it has no income according
to the terms that the EU imposes, which are the so-called "golden
rule of zero public deficits and continuous cuts of public spending".
They are
closing schools, hospitals, transportation, what happens in Greece it
happens in France and the rest of Europe. But, if we follow the
National Front recipe, we will end to a similar result because what
is asking is the restriction of public spending and state income from
taxation. No one bothers to explain this. Everyone is satisfied to
demonize far-Right phenomenon and stigmatize it, using cliches from
the past that today have little meaning for the young people.
Also, the
fact that the National Front is treated as a "waste" by the
political system probably works to its benefit because allows it to
claim, misleadingly of course, that it is the only anti-systemic
political power. In any case, the far-Right entity needs to be
treated politically, not just to be demonized with "incantations"
from the past which mean nothing to the young people.
Besides
that, as long as Europe is being supported, not by political and
logical arguments, but by taboos, the demagogic and populist reaction
against it naturally increases, but without political and logical
arguments of course. However, since the defenders of Europe are the
first who do not explain its necessity through political, economic
arguments, but project it as a religious dogma, speedy reaction and
expansion of the opposite demagogy at this level, comes naturally.
Demagogy and
populism in favor of Europe is the ultimate and basic cause for the
fast development of the exactly opposite anti-European demagogy and
anti-European populism. It's for the interest of the Left not to be
involved in any demagogy against Europe or in favor of it.
In
Greece we have to deal with the worst case of a far-Right rise, since
we are talking about a neo-nazi party ...
And in our
case we need to deal this politically, not by demonizing it, or, by a
solution through law, prohibition. The term "neo-nazi" does
not prevent, as we have seen, voters to choose them. This is a term which
refers to facts four generations in the past and not everyone
understands its meaning. Of course, modern citizens should know what
nazism is, but I doubt whether everyone knows it. They would
understand much better demagogy and the exploitation of current
reality.
Do you
expect a rise of the percentage of National Front in euro elections?
Of course,
because euro elections are taking place in one round and with the
simple analogy. In local elections, the result of the first round is
"drown" in the second round. However, the results of the
first round should concern us mostly politically. As long as they do
not concern us, but only through slogans and laws, the "black
stain" will be expanded.
Was
the high percentage of abstention a way to disapprove Hollande?
It was an
important factor because it reached 38%, and it seems that those who
didn't go to vote, were mainly Socialists and Leftists. This resulted
in a more massive "presence" of the Right voters. Those who
were voted for Hollande in the past have been discouraged by his
government. But Mélenchon's Left didn't go better and this is a
problem which must put us in thoughts.
On the
contrary, in Greece we saw a rise in the percentage of SYRIZA
From the
whole Europe, only in Greece can be seen a significant rise of the
Left, being so close to power. The Greek experience probably will be
proven useful for the rest of the European Left. That doesn't mean
that SYRIZA treats the far-Right phenomenon without mistakes, but
also national matters which may be proven crucial, like for example
the Cyprus problem. Experiences from other countries should inspire
us to think and search, to lead us in useful lessons, not in sterile
or catastrophic triumph-talks without future.
Comments
Post a Comment