Posts Tagged "Front National"

Sarkozy welcomes Le Pen into the Republic

Both Hollande and Sarkozy have tried to lure over voters who contributed to the 18% Front National score. Hollande has made several speeches along the lines of ‘It’s my responsibility not to disappoint you’ and ‘I understand the anger these people feel.’ Sarkozy, on the other hand, features on the front cover of Libération (a left-leaning newspaper):

Le Pen is compatible with the Republic.

Now I am given to understand, in the name of fairness, that Sarkozy actually said that the Front National is compatible with the Republic, rather than Le Pen. It also doesn’t specify which Le Pen (junior or senior?). With 18% of the vote, I could understand the point he could have made, but it’s a very transparent scramble for last-minute votes.

Regardless, all the French people I know (bearing in mind 95% of them are Socialists) are deeply upset. My social networks were peppered with the word honteux – shameful.

A profoundly anti-republican party is now deemed compatible with the Republic by the (outgoing) President of the Republic. The French have a great word banalisation for which we have to direct translation in English (the French love nouns for everything). It’s an idea to describe to process of making something everyday or commonplace. The closest I can get is a phrase like ‘thin end of the wedge’ or ‘slippery slope’.

Overall, I said Sarkozy would dash to the right, and he has done so in the least tasteful way possible.

Honteux.

French Election Results: First Round

Hollande leads with 28.63%
Sarkozy comes out with 27.08% (slightly better than the estimations that had him on 26.5).
Marine Le Pen sets a new record on 18.01%
Melenchon ends up with 11.13% (significantly less than the polls suggested, but an impressive performance having started at 5%)
Bayrou in the centre gets 9.11%
Joly (Greens) gets a poor 2.28%

Libération has the best and most interactive results gadget here but the FranceTV one can be embedded:

Rue89 calls the second round for Hollande, claiming that ‘there is no way Sarkozy can win’ (French).

I am much less optimistic. Not least because of my philosophy ‘If the PS can find a way to lose, it will.’

Hollande is the leader, which is better than I was expecting but 2% is not as high as I would like in order to feel comfortable. With two weeks to go he will be forced to define his ideas more clearly, and there is little to gain from debating with Sarkozy. Sarkozy proposed 3 debates last night, Hollande has refused two of them. Sarkozy will portray this as recognition of inexperience.

Sarkozy’s lurch to the far right has failed, but still remains his only hope. Analysts give Sarkozy a maximum reserve of 60% of the FN vote, and about 30% of the Bayrou vote.

The international press will focus on the Le Pen vote (only thing that seems to interest non-anaorak foreigners – if you are reading this, congratulations, you are in the anorak club). My question is, ‘What happened to Melenchon’s people?’ They didn’t go to Hollande at the last minute, they didn’t go back to the greens (polls were accurate on those two accounts), and they didn’t stay at home given 80% turnout.  Is it possibly that the crusty left lurched to the far right? Extremes meet.

Melenchon’s disappointing 11% score does not, in my view, give Hollande a very secure reserve as 15% would have done. The mysterious ‘dynamique’ that Hollande will get from leading in Round 1 will have to be translated into support from non-supporters. Perhaps Sarkozy’s far-right strategy will scare off enough centrists? It might, but it probably wouldn’t matter.

That said, my PS friends point to the fact that the Left is very high compared to normal (I didn’t want to upset them by saying Jospin came first in 1995 and still lost in the second round).

Before the results were in last night, a second round poll was conducted giving Hollande 54 and Sarkozy 46. Encouraging, but I don’t buy it will two weeks to go.

Overal, the next two weeks will not take place in the centre. Both Sarkozy and Hollande will have to try and pick apart the FN; a very unpleasant direction.

Alors je flippe.

Authenticity and reading speeches

Authenticity was the word of the day at the UK Speechwriters’ Guild Conference. Alexei Kapterev gave a presentation introducing his concept of authenticity, then a few days later Max Atkinson wrote this piece with some scepticism. Alexei responded to Max’s response with this piece and Martin Shovel responded to that with his own piece. I suppose this is the fifth link in the chain.

The concept of authenticity

Instinctively, I like the concept of authenticity. Much of Alexei’s definition is easy ground for consensus. The speaker should mean, or look like he means, what he says. The speaker’s body language should match the words. If a speaker is not authentic, then the audience cannot believe him.

However, does this relate to reading a script? Does speaking without notes make someone more authentic? Does speaking from memory make someone more authentic? I don’t think it does. Indeed, that might be the only thing anybody remembers from a speech. I don’t remember what David Cameron said in 2005, but I remember that he did it from memory. Surely that betrays the point of his speech. (The point of communicating a vision rather than the point of winning the leadership by being ‘new’.)

‘The speaker should “own” the speech.’

This is really the key concept of authenticity, not the debate around reading and improvising speeches. ‘Owning the speech’ is a concept interpreters think about a lot, particularly in consecutive interpreting. Just this morning I interpreted a speech from a Front National deputy on immigration. I did not mean what I was saying, and everybody  knew it (perhaps because the audience knew me personally rather than through delivery). It was not my speech, and everybody knew it. They were not my words and they were not my ideas. Does that imply that I was inauthentic? Under Alexei’s definition, it does. In reality, it might not even matter. An interpreter might not count as a speaker.

My personal experience

I’m not a speechwriter, but most people I know would (I believe) say that I am competent at giving both improvised and scripted speeches.  I enjoy the process of writing, practicing and then delivering a speech. It allows me to think carefully about the words I want to use, and to plan more effectively the flow of the argument.

From the point of view of the text, a written speech is the best way to express a message because it means that the speaker can maximise the speech’s effect for the audience.

From the point of view of delivery, reading but not sounding like you are reading is a special skill. This, as Max points out, is ‘true but easy to remedy’. All it takes is practice and familiarity with the text.

Flexibility

Alexei asks, ‘Can you get an immediate feedback from your audience while you are reading the script? You can, but the problem is that you are too busy reading. You are certainly much less effective in this regard.’ Again, I think it comes down to preparation and practice. If you are familiar with the text and what you want to say, then you have the confidence to adapt your script as you want. In my opinion, having the text in front of you (particularly an annotated one) means that your memory is unburdened and you can concentrate on the audience. You can then react as appropriate.

But which is better?

As is so often the way, the conclusion is: ‘It depends.’ It depends on the speaker, it depends on the speech, and it depends on the context. If a speaker knows what he wants to say, then he is authentic. If he prepares well, then the audience will be respectful.

The Future of the Front National

Le Pen is dead, long live Le Pen! Back in March I noted that the elections to the Conseil Régional Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur would be the last time Jean-Marie Le Pen would present himself as a political candidate before retirement (here). It’s worth looking at how French fascism will cope without him.

As Jean-Marie steps down as leader, there are two candidates ready to take his place. In first position, with J-M’s backing, is his daughter Marine Le Pen, a blond 41 year old, who can carry on the family business of fascist populisum.  The other contender is a man called Bruno Gollinisch, a 60 year old holocaust denier and long-time colleague of J-M.

Les Pens: Jean-Marie and Marine

Marine managed to win a decent score in March, rivalling her UMP competitor with about 19% each, which could be attributed again to the family brand and protest votes, but it remains a significant achievement.

A recent poll for Libération (the newspaper) showed that 64% of the French people believe, as Ségolene Royal (a socialist) claimed, that the government is corrupt, after a series of scandals and policy failures.

The Front was too happy to join in the condemnation, because it is this sort of discourse that they have perfected. Nobody benefits more than from the idea that the main parties are corrupt  than extremists, be they Front National or Lib Dem (not that I would compare the two, since the FN never threw out their principles to join a conservative government, after all.)

Yet since 2002, the Front has never been able to repeat its surprising score in the those Presidentials. This was partly because Sarkozy moved his party and government to the right to steal some far-right votes, yet it didn’t last for long and they soon moved back home.

So although JM is on his way out, it is far too early to say that the FN has had its day. 2012 looks ever more exciting.

The cynical manipulation of National Identity

The phrase National Identity has become increasingly familiar in current political discourse, despite the fact that nationalism and nationhood are far from being new ideas in Europe.

Typically, it is the Right and Far-Right which profits from and occupies itself with concerns over identity. Excluding Gordon Brown’s occasional remarks on possibly considering planning a “British Day” and citizenship classes, British National identity tends to be restricted to the hard-line Eurosceptic Tories and UKIPpers as a means to denounce the European Union and the core campaign front of the British National Party.

In France, by contrast, National Identity has been a strong recurring theme since President de Gaulle in the 1960s. Even now, Nicolas Sarkozy has launched a campaign for a ‘great debate on National Identity’ in events organised across the country.

However, though I am well known for clear opinions and a willingness to discuss contentious issues in free, pluralistic and useful debate, Sarkozy’s campaign has none of these three traits. It is not free because it is his government which sets the agenda, asks the questions and controls the answers. It is not pluralistic because it tries to hammer diversity into a single rigid identity. It is not useful because it is nothing but a divisive tool designed to stigmatise foreigners.

National Identity, as opposed to regional identity, is an artificial Napoleonic concept. As such, it is driven by the state as a means to define a citizen’s place in order to encourage and pressure people into conformity and submission.

Identity is not assigned, fixed and then closed; it is based on a set of political and social principles which are open and organic. This is why the EU struggles time after time to create a European Identity. The French Republic, above all else, is founded on its liberty of expression, its equality of rights and its fraternity of people. Equally, Britain is based on values of justice, tolerance and respect.

Thus the Far Right can only profit from National Identity using an outdated and narrow definition. As part of Sarkozy’s debate, Jean Marie Le Pen, leader of the Front National, held a rally in Marseilles (he is standing in the PACA Regional Election) claiming the debate swung in his party’s favour. This announcement was backed up by the polls; the FN has now hit 10% in the region; up four points since October. He promised a “cruel surprise” for Nicolas Sarkozy in March.

In my summer by-election, there was a party known as Nissa Rebelda, which is also known as Nissa Identiaire; which is a good example of fascist “identity politics” though fairly new they did equally well as the FN.

Similarly, in Britain, Nick Griffin was attacked on Question Time for hijacking Churchill’s image by declaring that he would have been a BNP member. He stole an important symbol of National Identity to use for his own political gain, suggesting that he would protect Britain from a perceived threat using Churchill standing up to the Nazis as an ironic metaphor.

The threat has traditionally been on racial and religious grounds, well before nations were founded. Now, as academics (and myself) discuss the nature of globalisation, national identity is attached to immigration and sovereignty despite, or as a consequence of the fact that national borders are becoming more porous and nations more co-dependent.

As sovereignty is increasingly shared and people are increasingly mobile, National Identity as a political construct can no longer exist as a single, rigid image. Identity is a perception. If someone feels that their identity is threatened it is often the case that their identity is at odds with the identity of another.

Though concerns about immigration and citizenship should not be dismissed, it is not acceptable to suggest that, in the name of National Identity; someone is “less” British or has “less” right to be in the country than someone else.

This is the politics of fear; bitterness and aggression. The discussion on National Identity is not framed around who you are; it is about who you are not.

The Next Step: Moving on from Question Time

I said the Internets would be ablaze with analysis and accusations over Nick Griffin’s appearance on Question Time. It didn’t take Nostradamus to know that prediction would come true.

Hopefully this post will be the last I need to say on the matter, as I’ll just add this little contribution to the debate: A while ago I was asked to compare the BNP and my experience dealing with the Front National.

Yesterday I was discussing the program with my friend Xavier Garcia, Spokesperson for the Parti Socialiste in the Alpes-Maritimes, who is also a university lecturer on politics in Nice. He wrote his doctoral thesis in Sheffield on the Labour Party of the 1980s.

The conclusion we came to was resolutely against No Platform (Who would have thought?) Here’s a summary of our conversation:

The rise of the BNP was impossible in the 80s and 90s because of the political landscape in Britain. Now, the Labour Party has become a middle class intellectual party and lost/losing its working class credentials (exactly like the PS), meanwhile, the Tory Party, which used to occupy the Right, has moved into the centre.

Most people think it is mainly old people who vote far right, in fact it’s very significantly young people from the working class (for reasons and fear that are discussed to death, like jobs and immigration) and so this space combined with far-rightists are why the BNP is “rising”.

On No Platform, the French parties boycotted the Front for years, and it grew and grew until it established a foothold, feeding and thriving from the notoriety and being “underground” from the mainstream parties.

Then No Platform ended, and the Front enjoyed a little boost (the same boost the BNP might experience after QT) but the FN has been in terminal decline ever since, further accelerated by Sarkozy poaching FN votes. Cameron’s Tories seem centrist, but only time will tell, they could erode the Far-Right electorate. If Labour gets its act together, the BNP will have nowhere left to go provided they are not given the No Platform lifeline of the protest-vote.

It’s incredibly short sighted to claim “told you so” from a 1% increase in the polls immediately after such a media spectacle. Which leads us to…

Tom Miller (a parliamentary candidate) has been asking me to respond to an article in the Guardian: “Ministers warn of poll boost for BNP after Question Time” who seems to have missed this quote from Darth Mandelson:

“In the short term, he [Griffin] may have done himself a favour. But in the long term he has done himself no good at all.”

Not to mention missing this (much better) piece from the UK Polling Report, YouGov verdict on BNP’s Question Time which highlights:

The topline voting intentions, with changes from the poll last weekend, are CON 40%(-1), LAB 27%(-3), LDEM 19%(+2), BNP 3%(+1). So while the BNP support is up, it is nothing significant. 2-3% has been pretty much the norm for their support over the last couple of months, and the most recent YouGov/Telegraph poll at the end of September also had them at 3%.

Then just as a side note:

What has changed was attitudes to the BBC’s decision to invite Griffin onto Question Time. At the weekend 63% thought it was right, 23% wrong. Now the balance of opinion has shifted further in favour of the BBC’s decision, 74% thinking it was right, and only 11% wrong.

I can’t believe anybody would think that the first appearance of the BNP on the Question Time would be a make-or-break situation and then we could all go home. This was the first battle in the war against the Far-Right, and we can choose to fight it, or regress to No Platform.

PS. I am in Britain this week, hoping to spend it with my girlfriend. Sorry Tom for not replying to your incredibly urgent Tweet until you mentioned it three times!