Paris
JUNE 2 -- Ihis article will be essentially a commentary on the results of yesterday's presidential election. I will wait until after the runofi election June 15 to examine the political situation in France and its perspectives.
In the first presidential election minus de Gaulle, we were faced with a mode of election introduced by him and designed primarily for his purposes. This type of election has the aspect of a plebiscite. It favors first of all reaction and secondarily incumbents and candidates with a machine behind them, as was well verified yesterday.
In the first place, the fight was primarily between two bourgeois candidates -- Pompidou and Poher -- both of whom got votes from a spectrum ranging from the reactionary and protofascist extreme right to that part of the left composed of the Radicals* and Socialists. In the runoff election, according to the constitution, the two bourgeois candidates will confront each other.
This result clarifies the meaning of the May 27 referendum. Ihe "no" vote was not a victory by the workers or the so-called left. It was a crafty operation by the capitalists to put in a new, more dynamic figure to replace de Gaulle, whose credit was worn out and who was becoming more and more uncontrollable. In the first round, Pompidou succeeded in garnering 44 percent of the vote, outdistancing Poher by more than 20 percent. As a result, he starts the runoff race with a substantial advantage because it seems quite unlikely that his rival will be able to win the votes of all the other candidates.
What was the reason for this outcome? Right after the referendum,
Poher, who had been a champion of the "no" vote, seemed to have a serious chance of edging out Pompidou. But a section of the bourgeois politicians who advocated a "no" vote were frightened by the perspective that the election of Poher would lead in a short time to the dissolution of the National Assembly, which now has a large Gaullist majority, and to the election of a new National Assembly lacking a stable majority. In face of that, they preferred to keep the present assembly, which plays no great political role. And at the same time Pompidou seemed to be more reasonable than de Gaulle was.
Iiet us stop here a minute. We will discover after the second round that the likely victory of the "Gaullist" Pompidou will not mean that France has returned to its previous situation with nothing changed but the president. In a Bonapartist regime, you need a Bonaparte. And you are not magically transformed into a Bonaparte just by the miracle of an electoral majority.
about et me ada another word, however.
Poher. During his campaign preceding the first round election, he turned more toward the right. For the second round, he will try to win the votes of the left.
The most striking result of the June l election was the debacle -- and that is not too strong a word -- suffered by the socialist candidate Defferre. He barely got the 5 percent necessary to recover his deposit. What were the causes of this debacle?
Personally, Defferre is one of a breed of Socialist and Radical politicians, numerous in the South of France, who maintain themselves on a local level with the support of a personal clientele won by petty favors, but who have no serious weight in national politics. He has been in control of the government of Marseilles, France's second largest city, Ior many years. But yesterday ne only placed fourth, after pompidou, roner, and even Duclos.
He has grandiose personal ambitions. He tried to get himself nominated in 1965 by undertaking an "American-style" campaign two years earlier. At that time, Guy Mollet openly torpedoed him in the Socialist party. This time the campaign was kicked off precipitously by de Gaulle's resignation.
The start of the campaign came at a bad time for the Socialists, who were in the course of reorganizing, replacing the old SFIO [Section Française de l'Internationale Ouvrière -- French Section of the Workers (Second) International] with a new party whose potential components showed scant enthusiasm for the projected "renewal."
And in this situation, Defferre forced the party's hand, getting himself nominated in questionable circumstances at a congress whose legitimacy was challenged by many Socialist federations. So Defferre started with a serious handicap among the Socialists themselves. And, far from trying to smooth things over, he largely ignored the party in conducting his campaign (and he got the same consideration in return -- Mollet did not speak once on his behalf). His only partner was Mendès France, who has never had a personal base and in the past has never had any chance except when the bourgeoisie might have need of a "Bonaparte of the left."
Finally, Defferre's constant policy for years has been to extend the following of the Socialist party to the ront to wit on the deas but ver right, to build a "broad federation certain Centrist* figures. His objective has been to reverse the situation that has existed in France since the end of the second world war, that is, the PCF's LParti Communiste Français --
French Communist party] preponderance over the
Socialist party on the electoral front.
All these factors could not help but repel the Socialist voters. One group preferred to vote for Poher in the first round, and the others -- who were far more numerous -- gave their votes to Duclos or to the PSU [Parti Socialiste Unifie - United Socialist party -- left Social Democrats] candidate, Rocard. And that is how such a debacle, almost unprecedented for a Socialist candidate, came about. Defferre is probably finished in the Socialist party. It remains to be seen what a Guy Mollet or a Mitterrand will do to straighten out the situation.
The PCF seemed to emerge as a big winner from the June 1 election, its candidate Jacques Duclos winning 21.4 percent of the vote. For several years now the PCF has considered it a great victory when it has kept its vote at a level only a few percentage points below what it won right after the war. The PCF militants worked very hard, and also more enthusiastically, because this time they were working for a party member and not the candidate of some other party.
Duclos got quite a few votes from Social Democrats who were fed up with Defferre and who could only welcome the PCF's reformism. As these Socialists saw it, there was no chance for Duclos to be elected or even to come in second, and therefore voting for him was only a way of registering a more effective protest vote.
The PSU candidate Rocard got 3.6 percent of the vote. In his postelection statement, Rocard expressed his gratification over his vote relative to that of
Defferre, promising that he would do much better next time. Anyone who had any doubts about his parliamentary cretinism should now be enlightened. Certainly, the debacle suffered by Defferre makes the vote won by the PSU appear "honorable"
from an electoral standpoint. But we should reserve judgment on whether the PSU has now begun to take over from the old Socialist party.
During the campaign, Rocard neglected the leftist language that attracts militants standing to the left of the PCF. He even neglected to bring in the other members of the PSU leadership. He waged a personal campaign over radio and television, whose political content was very right wing. He was supported in particular by progressive Christians like the Témoignage Chrétien [Christian Witness] people.
Our comrade Alain Krivine got about 239,000 votes, or a little more han 1 percent.* Ihis figure was well above what we were expecting (we figured on 100,000 to 200,000 votes). But clearly these votes were by no means the objective of this candidacy and the campaign that was waged. Our aim was to use the provisions of the electoral law -- which the bourgeoisie will now certainly amend - to wage a revolutionary propaganda campaign based primarily on the May 1968 criin order to prepare the way for tomorrow's inevitable battles.
This campaign had an impact that obviously could not be reflected in the voting outcome. Mass meetings were held throughout the provinces and the Paris region. They were well attended not only by youth but also by adult workers. And the impressiveness of the mass meeting in the Palais des Sports in Paris cannot be overemphasized. More than 10,000 persons were present. The spirit of the meeting was such that it reminded Le Monde of the atmosphere of May. Moreover, the campaign enabled the Communist League Ligue Communiste -- the French section of the
Fourth International] to draw new activist forces around itself and to penetrate into cities and regions where it had no contacts before. Nor should it be overlooked that the Communist League demonstrated in action to the young vanguard today, in which the influence of ultraleftism ought not to be underestimated, that there is no incompatibility between a revolutionary program and participating in elections.
I will end these few notes here. The vote must be examined in greater detail, giving careful consideration to the local and not just the general results. But one last remark should be made.
With May 1968 France entered a situation in which anyone with the slightest understanding knows that great changes
* The official final total was 239,104
amounting to 1.05 percent of the votes 22,898,960 cast. -- I.P.
have taken place with a good many more to come. The political, economic, and social situation is unstable in the highest degree. ana, at the same time, with the exeption oi the case of the socialist par-
Paris
JUNE 3 - Yesterday evening the Central Committee of the PCF [French Communist partyl decided to call on the voters to abstain in the second round of the presidential election. The PCF's argument is that no matter whether Pompidou or Poher is elected the same policy will be followed.
This is something of a simplification but it is true that on quite a few important points the future president of the republic and the bourgeois government he heads have no alternatives. Economic, financial, and social problems leave French capitalism less room for maneuver than in the past. Even if by some miracle victory of the very disthere were a united "left," which the PCF is always urging to unite, this left would inevitably carry out a similar if not identical program -- given its determination not to strike the least blow against the capitalist system.
The PCF's decision to call for abstention was designed to get the party out of an embarrassing dilemma. On the one hand, Moscow and the bureaucratic leaderships in the workers states have made no secret of their sympathy for Pompidou, hoping that despite some campaign statements that were more pro-NAIO than in the past he will continue de Gaulle's foreign policy.
On the other hand, the popular masses -- and thus a large part of the Communist electorate -- are profoundly hostile to Pompidou, whom they consider to be de Gaulle's stooge and a continuer of the Gaullist regime. And these voters might be inclined to vote for Poher in order to block Pompidou.
But the PCF's decision to call for abstention poses a very important politi-
Workers and students clashed sharp- Ly with police in Montevideo, Uruguay, June 5 after the government sent in troops to operate the struck meat-packing industry. Ihe workers cut down trees to build barricades reinforced with barbed ty, the vote showed considerable stability, liffering little from the 1963-65 figures.
It can be seen how deceptive the electoral barometer can be.
cal problem. When a small revolutionary organization, whose intluence in the electoral arena is weak, calls Ior boycotting elections or a referendum, its aim is primarily to make a propaganda gesture aimed at educating the workers, at showing them the inanity, In specilic circumstances, •i an election or a referendum and to counterpose methods of revolutionary struggle.
But how can an appeal for abstention be accepted from a party which has hegemony in the working class and which just got 4,800,000 votes on June 1?* Right after such a vote, when there is a national election coming up in which millions of workers will want to participate, including the 4,800,000 Communist voters, how can the PCF
tell its supporters to stay home or go fishing? If the constitution makes the second round a still more grotesque farce than the first, if it prevents the workers from making their weight felt, could a party which still has the majority of the working class behind it be so devoid of imagination that it could not find ways and means through which the working class could make itself heard on that day?
In reality, the PCF thought that by deciding to call for abstention it could escape the dilemma in which it had been placed. But the fact is it could not evade the logic of the policy of a "peaceful and parliamentary road" which it is following, the parliamentary cretinism it suffers from. Facing a rigged electoral law, a mass party has two alternatives - to remain passive or to summon the workers to a higher form of struggle than the ballot. The PCF has chosen passivity and inaction.
* The official final vote for Duclos was 4,808,285; i.e., 21.27 percent of the total. - I.P.
wire. Groups of students set up impromptu "toll zones" throughout the city and forced well-to-do motorists to contribute to the strike fund. Ihe packinghouse workers had been on strike for more than forty days when the battle occurred.
FRENCH CP CALLS FOR BOYCOTT OF SECOND ROUND OF ELECTIONS
URUGUAYAN PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS GIVE STRIKEBREAKING POLICE À HOT TIME
FRENCH CP CALLS FOR BOYCOTT OF SECOND ROUND OF ELECTIONS
URUGUAYAN PACKINGHOUSE WORKERS GIVE STRIKEBREAKING POLICE À HOT TIME
KRIVINE CALLS FOR MARKING BLANK BALLOTS IN RED
[Before returning to his base at government, first by forcing de Gaulle to step down, and then by preparing the way for the probable election of Pompidou two weeks from now. Pompidou is backed by the most dynamic strata of the capitalist class. He offers the bourgeoisie all the advantages of General de Gaulle and none of the disadvantages. Poher is supported by less important, more outmoded and spent forces.
The election marked a crisis for the Social Democracy from which the SFIO [Section Française de l'Internationale Ouvrière -- French Section of the Workers (Second) International - the traditional and main party of the French Social Democracy] will not recover. The Social Democracy is split between the partisans of electoral alliances with the Communist party (like Mitterrand) and Pierre Mendès France, who has a longer-term perspective of a center-left government. Ihe PSU is also split. It is divided between followers of Mitterrand, like Michel Rocard, and those who want to give concrete expression to the May movement.
The CP at bottom is responsible for the victory of the right because it has not been able to bring the workingclass vote to bear behind a truly communist policy. It got only 5,000,000 votes out of the 10,000,000 workers on strike last year. It is in difficulty, moreover, because it is going to have to explain to its members why a boycott of the secondround election is necessary after attacking us when we boycotted elections in the past. Ihen it said that revolutionists never boycott elections.
The number of persons who say they nave "a great deal" or "quite a lot" of confidence in the ability of the present government to handle problems facing the country has dropped from 32 percent in 1967 to 21 percent in the present poll.
When questioned about Wilson's personal qualities as a leader, participants in the present poll indicated a general decline in those qualities thought of as positive and an increase in those considered negative in comparison with a similar poll taken in June 1968. Persons who regard Wilson as sensible, for example, have declined from 72 percent in June 1968 to 59 percent in May 1969. On the other hand, those viewing the prime minister as "dishonest" have risen from 12 percent to 27 percent in the same period.
Verine, tee minist Secue candidate news conference explaining his position on the second round in the French presidential elections as well as his evaluation of some of the first-round results.
[Krivine called on the other left parties, in particular the Communist party and the PSU (Parti Socialiste Unifié -- United Socialist party), to join with the Communist League in campaigning for a blank vote in the second round.
[He suggested that the blank ballots could be marked in red in order to give the government a clear demonstration of the nature of the abstentionist vote. If the other left parties were unwilling to support such a campaign, Krivine indicated that his organization would call for a boycott of the election.
LIn analyzing the meaning of the 239,000 votes he had won, Krivine said: "The youth voted for us and we also succeeded in developing a base among the workers. Ihis will be something for the bourgeoisie and the Communist party to contend with."
[Krivine's views on other aspects election were reported in the of the June 4 issue of Le Monde as follows.]
The first round was a victory for the right. The right has also successfully engineered a personnel turnover in the
British Prime Minister Harold Wilson has never been so little liked by the electorate, including members of the Labour party, according to an Opinion Research Centre poll published in the May 25 Iondon Sunday Times.
Since June 1968 the percentage of voters who hold Wilson responsible for "all, " "most," or "quite a lot" of the government's failures has risen from 48 to 56 percent. Among Labour voters it has gone from 16 to 28 percent.
Some 68 percent of the voters would like to see an immediate general election, while only 1? percent would prefer to see Wilson continue in office. Some 29 percent supported the Wilson government in a similar poll in November 1967.
Notes
* Petty-bourgeois liberals in the French political tradition. -- I.P.
* Pro-American "modernist" bourgeois moderates. -- I.P.