Despite the gigantic sums spent on the election campaign for the European Parliament, a large number of voters in the Common Market countries were apparently not persuaded to turn out June 10 to choose their representatives to that body, which meets in Strasbourg. In fact, only six out of ten Europeans went to the polls.
This abstention, which is the first important result of the election, sometimes took on much bigger proportions. Thus, in Britain, 70% of the voters stayed home, while in France the figure was 40%, in Denmark 52%, in Ireland 42%, in West Germany 30%. In the Benelux countries where voting is mandatory, 20% of the voters abstained nonetheless, and in Italy, where voting is also mandatory, "only" 15% abstained.
Initial commentaries all dwelt at length on this phenomenon, which definitely testifies to a political reality. But they nearly all got lost in speculation about the failure of the "idea of Europe" to become real. However, the reasons for this massive abstention seem fairly clear.
First, there is the fact that this was not an election that was going to immediately and directly change the composition of the governments in the different countries. But there is also the fact that capitalist "Europe"-the Europe of the multinationals-is a concrete reality to broad layers of workers. It is the Europe of unemployment, austerity, the special oppression of youth and women, the nuclear danger, repression. A very tangible reality which they want nothing to do with, but against which none of the major political forces, either in the bourgeois camp or in the workers movement, offer a strategy of struggle. This is certainly the main reason for the massive desertion of the polls.
In all the countries, in fact, the overwhelming majority of political parties, both bourgeois and reformist, are in favor of such a Europe. This is true despite their tactical differences, which obviously always come to the fore in an election campaign (this was particularly the case this time around in France).
Thus, in Britain, the Conservatives, Labour, the Liberals, and even the extreme right-winger Enoch Powell, are for Europe, while there exists strong opposition within the Labour Party and among the bluecollar electorate to the Common Market.
In West Germany and Italy, the election campaign had a single voice, for there too all the major political forces are "pro- Europe" and even in absolute agreement on all the tactical questions (broadening the Assembly, increasing its powers, etc.).
The same goes for Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands. Only in Denmark is there a real battle going on between those for and against the country's participation in the EEC. Given a total lack of choice, given especially the lack of a clear program against the Europe of big business, many voters preferred to stay at home.
Because of this high rate of abstention, it is difficult to draw general conclusions from the results about the national political relationship of forces in all the coun tries.
If we take Britain as an example, the 30% of the voters who turned out were mainly the Conservatives, who are the most interested in Europe. Mrs. Thatcher's party was able to carry off nearly 70% of the seats in the Strasbourg assembly because the Labour electorate was not mobilized. But its victory was much less clear in the national elections last May.
Aside from Britain, which is quite an extreme case, the "trouncing" of the left, which was spotlighted by all the media, is entirely relative. It exists, of course, and it is the price that the traditional parties of the workers movement are paying for not offering the slightest alternative to the bourgeois parties and the Europe of big business, thus strengthening the latter.
The SPD (Social-Democratic Party of Germany) in West Germany registered a 2% loss in votes to the CDU (Christian Democratic Union), which thus approaches an absolute majority. But in Italy, the CP got the same score as in the June 3-4 legislative elections, while the SP made slight gains (by 1.5%), and the Christian Democracy lost 1% over its results of the previous week.
Likewise, in France the overall vote for the left was the same as in the March 1978 legislative elections, even if changes in the distribution of votes between the different forces were recorded.
The election results in France are particularly interesting given the stakes invested in this campaign by both sides, not on the Europe issue, but in terms of the preparations for the 1981 presidential elections. The campaign in fact took the form of a "primary" between the UDF (Union for French Democracy, the organization supporting Giscard d'Estaing) and the RPR (Assembly for the Republic, led by Paris Mayor Jacques Chirac) in one camp, and the SP and CP in the other.
This battle did not fail to sow confusion among the electorate. In fact the convinced partisans of "Europe" (the UDF and SP) were each subject to pressures from a party within its camp that waved the flag of French national sovereignty (the RPR, and especially the CP). Thus, the UDF and the SP were compelled to moderate their enthusiasm for Europe, while the RPR and the CP declared that, after all, they favored remaining within that Europe and building it. You had to really want to follow this campaign, and especially read between the lines of each side's statements, to understand what was going on.
The national objectives of Giscard d'Estaing and CP leader Georges Marchais were partially achieved in this campaign. The president in fact meant to use this campaign-knowing that a pro-Europe majority exists in the country—to deal a drastic setback to the RPR, the Gaullist party which was still, in March 1978, not only the leading party of the majority, but the leading party in France. To that end, he used a tactic that paid off in the short run, at least.
What he did was to hide all the old UDF sharks behind the reassuring face of Simone Veil, who carried the campaign by herself, and whose "nonprofessionalism" was intended to appeal to an electorate that for years had been drenched in debates between the same slightly faded political stars!
At the same time, the slate headed by Veil received the official franchise in the form of open support from Premier Raymond Barre, who even took part in public meetings side by side with her.
Jacques Chirac, for his part, thought that in this campaign he could overcome the contradiction that had plagued the Gaullists for several years-their support for and participation in a government whose actions they constantly criticize. But the RPR campaign, which focused essentially on attacking the Barre government, not only created a malaise within the Gaullist movement, but was not understood by its constituency. And the RPR's catastrophic results (winding up as the losing party with only 16% of the vote, far behind the CP) will only intensify this malaise and underscore the impasse it is in.
The fact is that the RPR cannot bring its criticism of the government to its logical conclusion—going over to the oppositionfor two reasons. First, because it would then bear the responsibility for a political crisis that would definitely bring a left majority to power, and second because the Gaullist party is not cut out to be in the opposition. Formed and developed as the Party-Regime, it was woven into all the institutions. Now that it has lost the popular aura it had under de Gaulle, it is that reality alone which gives it its electoral base. Going over to the opposition could be fatal.
This contradiction and impasse-which are insurmountable for the time being, given the political and social relationship of forces in the country-emerged clearly at a postelection meeting of the leadership body of the RPR.
On the evening of June 10, the Gaullist ministers publicly expressed their criticisms of Chirac's campaign. But they nevertheless reaffirmed their confidence in him, for they too are caught in the contradiction of the Gaullist movement. Which is what Claude Labbé, chairman of the RPR parliamentary delegation, was expressing when he explained June 10 that, by being against "the Socialist-Communists, the Gaullists are therefore in the majority."
The battles within the majority, however, are far from over. Especially since, despite the collapse of the RPR, the Veil- Barre-Giscard slate did not win a victory either in terms of the goals it had set itself or in terms of the pre-election polls, all of which gave the government slate a vote of over 30%, The slate of the "president's party" got only 28% of the votes (that is, less than the number of votes Giscard d'Estaing got on the first round of the 1974 presidential elections); the slate officially supported by the premier thus clearly came out the loser.
Moreover, the UDF has far from established itself as a party—in opposition to the RPR-and besides, at the Strasbourg Assembly, its members will be seated with different political clans. The two parties of the majority got only 45% of the vote, or 46.7% if the votes for Servan-Schreiber of the Radical Party are added.
In the camp of the working class, the redistribution of votes was not as radical. The CP's objective was to restabilize the electoral relationship of forces on the left in its favor. To the extent this actually occurred, it was because of the beating the SP took. The CP held on to the vote it got in March 1978, while the SP lost slightly
The SP was in fact in a difficult situation in this campaign. The CP was breathing down its neck on the outside, while internally it was hampered by the pact between the leaders of the Mitterrand current and CERES* (which has the same position as the CP on the Europe issue). Seeking to differentiate itself from the UDF at all costs, the SP tried to wave the flag, while declaring itself the most pro- Europe of all.
In the course of the campaign, the SP *Centre d'Etudes, de Recherches, et d'Education Socialistes (Center for Socialist Studies, Research, and Education), the SP "left wing."- IP/I
also tried to rehabilitate the Social Democracy. However, after the performances of Callaghan and Schmidt, this was pretty hard to swallow for an electorate that has been attracted in recent years to the "socialist renewal" that the French Socialist Party seemed to represent.
The CP, meanwhile, was the only party that beat the drums for its own positions, reaching new heights of chauvinism and reaction the last few weeks of the campaign. Among the examples that can be cited are the anti-German slogan painted on the walls of the Longwy mayor's office: "1870, 1914, 1940: That's enough!" Or the leaflets handed out by the CP cell at the Dassault aviation plant, which explained that, thanks to the Communists, France now has French-made bombers! Or the leaflet from the CP federation in Eure (the mushroom-growing region), which states: "Yes to mushrooms à la grecque; no to Greek mushrooms!"
The most dramatic result is that, in face of the SP's proimperialist, pro-Europe position, this outrageous chauvinism and reactionary demagogy could be seen as the answer in the regions hardest hit by Common Market policy decisions (for example, in the southwest of France).
3.1% Vote for Trotskyist Slate
Among the most significant results of the election in France was the vote for the slate run by Lutte Ouvrière (Workers Struggle) and the LCR (Ligue Communiste
Commu-
Révolutionaire-Revolutionary nist League, the French section of the Fourth International), under the slogan "For the Socialist United States of Europe," and the vote for the ecology slate. The first got 3.1% (more than 622,000 votes), and the second 4.4%.
To begin with, these results show the scandalous nature of the election law, which requires a party to get 5% of the vote in order to have a representative in Strasbourg and be reimbursed for campaign expenditures. This infamous law passed by the four major parties (including the SP and CP), who thus guaranteed themselves a monopoly over "representation" at the Strasbourg Assembly.
The vote for the Trotskyist slate is all the more important considering the unprecedented monopolization of the media by the major parties, which had many hours at their disposal to present their views on all the networks. The "small slates" were entitled to only 4.5 minutes each in the framework of the "official" campaign, and were not invited to a single debate organized by the radio and television networks.
It was an organized boycott, as the television producers told us. They had gotten the order not to film the June 2-3 festival at Mériel, outside Paris, where 40,000 persons turned out in support of the slate "For the Socialist United States of Europe!"
To partially compensate for this boycott by the broadcasting media, Lutte Ouvrière and the LCR organized a broadcast of one hour on June 8, over an unofficial transmitter that could be heard in the Paris region.
Despite this blackout, the campaign carried out by the members of both organizations made significant gains, with its vote of 3.1% equaling roughly 15% of the CP's constituency. In addition, the breakdown showed that the vote for the Trotskyists exceeded 4% (thus, 20% of the CP constituency) in the big working-class centers in the Paris region. The Trotskyists also received a vote of more than 4% in the regions hit hardest by the economic crisis, where powerful mobilizations have taken place in recent months (this is the case in Lorraine, despite the fact that the two organizations' base there is weak).
These results confirm the impact of the only internationalist, antichauvinist, and anticapitalist campaign that was heard in these elections—an impact that could also be measured in the course of the numerous large rallies organized throughout France.
In terms of the ecology vote (4.4% in France and 3.5% in West Germany), the particularly high scores in the areas af fected by nuclear plants are to be noted: more than 10% in Alsace and 14% in Flamanville.
In the other countries, the revolutionary slates also got a significant vote. In Britain, for example, Tariq Ali got 1% of the vote, despite the tidal wave of abstention; in Belgium, our comrades of the LRT won 17,000 votes, while the slate run by the centrists got a slightly higher vote. In Denmark, the Left Socialist Party (VS) did not get a representative despite winning 3.5%. In Italy, where the straight proportional system is in effect, the PUP, with 1.1%, has an elected representative, and so does Democrazia Proletaria, which got 0.7% of the vote (the same result as in the national elections).
In Northern Ireland, Bernadette Devlin got 32,000 votes after a campaign focusing around the struggle against British imperialist repression. This campaign was supported by the comrades of People's Democracy, a group in sympathy with the Fourth International.
The majority of these protest votes against the Europe of big business will not be heard by the European Assembly in the semicircular hall of Strasbourg, but they will echo still louder in the coming struggles against the Europe of unemployment and austerity, the nuclear future, and the repression that this assembly has in store for us.
Missing issues for the current year may be ordered by sending 75c per copy.
Write for information about previous years.