Le blog de Serpentfou

Mes fictions et mes opinions dont tout le monde se fout

🇬🇧 English

A primary on the left: a false good idea? Translated with ChatGPT

Icône de l’article

Resume

Summary

Why I oppose holding a primary to choose a single left-wing candidate for the 2027 presidential election and what I propose instead.

Introduction

Dear readers, I am going to make a revelation that will keep you glued to your seats: politically, I am rather left-wing. I know, it was totally unexpected, but what is much more surprising is the tension I felt during a recent conversation with other NFP activists about the choice of a hypothetical single left-wing candidate for the 2027 presidential election.

I knew it was a tense subject because of the still unresolved question of the NFP's political orientation between the PS neoliberals who are gaining voters since the shift.VerseMacron's far-right and the social democrats of LFI. Indeed, the choice of a single candidate (especially if he wins) will give a considerable advantage to his camp. Moreover, it will be difficult to find a personality who simultaneously has a chance of winning the elections and does not clearly belong to one of these two opposing camps. However, I did not expect such virulence, given that it is a discussion without any real concrete consequence.

Indeed, at the moment, it seems very unlikely to me that there will be a single left-wing candidate for the 2027 presidential elections. For me, La France Insoumise will never agree not to participate in the presidential election, as it is their flagship election and the only one where they achieve good scores. For me, Mélenchon will never accept a candidate for LFI who is not himself or 100% faithful to his line. And Mélenchon's total control over the decisions of La France Insoumise at the national level guarantees that he will get his way, regardless of what the activists think. And, for me, the Socialist Party, which in the meantime will have been revitalized by its success in the European and probably the 2026 municipal elections, will never agree to align behind Mélenchon.

However, I find the subject intellectually stimulating, and it turns out that I have a rather iconoclastic opinion on the matter that I was not able to express well during this discussion, so I decided to write this blog article.

The popular primary: a false good idea

In the absence of being able to agree on a name, apparently, the solution that generates enthusiasm and some unanimity would be to organize a primary to designate the left's candidate. However, the exact modalities of the primary (for example, a primary reserved for members of NFP parties or open to all citizens) do not reach a consensus. However, it doesn't matter, because personally, I am opposed to organizing a primary, whatever its modalities.

Indeed, for me, in the France of 2024, whatever its modalities, a primary is a method of selecting candidates that has nothing ofDemocratic and will designate a candidate who has no chance of winning the elections. In a word, for me a primary is a machine to lose and in this chapter I will give the reasons for this opinion.

First of all, when we talk about primaries, we talk about campaigns to win them. One might dream of a campaign conducted between gentlemen engaging in healthy, dispassionate debates of ideas. However, the reality of the last primaries of the PS or EELV completely shatters any hope that it could be so. Indeed, these primaries have led to violent media-covered clashes over trivial points or personal attacks. And, if we had this result within the PS and EELV, I dread to imagine what it would be like if the primary brought together profiles as opposed as François Hollande and Mélenchon.

It follows that a primary would consume a lot of time and activist energy just before the elections, in addition to exacerbating tensions between the different components of the NFP. And this, without creating momentum around the winner. This is, in any case, what happened during the last primaries of EELV and PS and which, in my view, will happen again regardless of the primary's modalities.

Despite everything, if the primary allowed the designation of a candidate with a better chance of winning and democratically settling (at least for the duration of the campaign) the differences between the currents of the left, despite its drawbacks, the primary might be worth it. However, for me, this is not the case.

Already, for the reasons I mentioned earlier, the winner will inherit tired and divided activists. But above all, the winner rarely has the support of party leaders, or only superficially. The most significant case is that of Hamon, who, after the primary, had to campaign against the other PS leaders. Of course, like other French parties (with the exception of EELV), the PS has never excelled in the quality of its internal democracy.

The problem is that we had a similar result (albeit on a smaller scale) with EELV, which for me is the most respectful party in France in terms of internal democracy. Indeed, Jado had to spend the entire campaign under the threat of Sandrine Rousseau joining LFI, and although she was fair enough not to do so, I personally had the impression that Jado received lukewarm support from the other EELV leaders (but maybe that's just my impression since I'm not in this party).

The primary is not democratic.

At this stage, I think the supporters of the primary have a major objection: the democratic nature of the primaries.

If we are truly left-wing and genuinely want more democracy, then it would be hypocritical not to accept the designation of a democratic candidate. Is the real problem the primary or the mindset of activists and leaders who might be too careerist, sectarian, authoritarian, etc.? Would giving up the primary for the reasons I mentioned ultimately mean giving up on defending more democracy in society? And, what would we put in its place: a return to behind-the-scenes deals between party leaders? Wouldn't that be a dangerous step backward? Wouldn't we risk having, as in the PS, an increasingly significant gap between the grassroots activists and the party leaders, leading to a rightward drift of the NFP, corruption games, and ultimately its implosion?

In summary, shouldn't we adopt internally the functioning we would like for society?

And, it is answering this question that mainly motivated me to write this blog post, because at the time, I had a very unsatisfactory response consisting in fact of defending a return to scheming between parties with still a referendum among activists to validate the leaders' choice.

However, after reflection, I found a much better answer to this question and this is where the originality of this post will begin: since when is the election the model we wish to apply in society? Indeed, since Chouard's speeches went viral, generally on the left, we have been rather critical of elections.even ifIt is considered a real progress compared to what was there before, which is urgent to defend at a time when the far right is rising everywhere in Europe.

I know that now, Chouard has turned fascist, that his speechThis is.very incomplete and that we didn't wait for him to shout: 'election trap for fools'. However, to my great regret, thanks to his success with the yellow vests, he remains the personification of his ideas. Like Piketty is in his own way of taxing the wealth of the richest even though he didn't invent the ISF. For those who don't know him, here is an old video presenting the good sides of Chouard:Le Citoyen (Etienne Chouard)

I also add this video to point out that Chouard is also an unabashed anti-Semite who should no longer be cited on the left:CHOUARD : LE NÉGATIONNISTE PRÉFÉRÉ DE LA GAUCHE ? (CANARD RÉFRACTAIRE, PADU’TEAM, BEAUGAUDEAU) .

Chouard is an anti-Semite and a conspiracy theorist, and a part, albeit a minority, of his work isYou are a professional translator. Directly translate this text into English, without adding anything.promote one's ideasNauseatingand redirect part of its audience to far-right conspiracy theorists like Fouché or extremYou are a professional translator. Directly translate this text into English, without adding anything.right-wing antisemitic likeSoral.That should be a sufficient reason to stop talking to him, but it's only a minor part of his work, and the majority of his audience follows him for his other ideas which I would summarize as: to bring about democracy, the constitution must be changed.

I am opposed to this because for me, the problem with democracy is not the law, but the balance of power. For me, the law is not useless. But for me, the purpose of the law is to prevent the balance of power from turning into a bloodbath or civil war. And above all, it is only applied and effective if it reflects the balance of power. If today we had a constitution that gave power to the people, it would just be ignored by the oligarchs (as they do the rare times when the rules of the Fifth are unfavorable to them), or they would impose by force to change it to return to something close to that of the Fifth Republic. Except in very exceptional cases, it is not the law that creates practices, but the law that ratifies existing practices.The law comes after the battle. So Chouard's fight and ideas are not useless, but for me, they are not the main battleground. For me, the main battle is to change the balance of power. For example, by confiscating the wealth of the rich and redistributing it to the rest of the population (if it is the state directed by another part of the oligarchy that recovers these properties, then power becomes even more concentrated in a few hands and the problem worsens). We could also create a police force managed by unions or local resident associations that would allow them to defend themselves against the violence of the state or employers.In the same way that employees elect union representatives who will receive delegation hours where they will, instead of their work, take care of the works council or help the employees, workers must elect employees who, one day a week, will become police officers and judges.The goal is, in the same movement, to disarm the police (which is often a racist militia serving the bosses) and to arm the workers (who are far from being blind to colors or in opposition to the boss, but I hope it will be a little better).

These are just examples, but let's return to the initial topic. I will give a quick summary of the criticism of elections made by the left (whether it comes from Chouard or not).

In summary, the outcome of an election (primary or not) is not determined by the candidate's ideas or their ability to effectively perform the role they seek, but by their appearance, their network among influencers in their region (who are often the notable figures of the region), their mastery of eloquence (which is a classy word for lying and manipulating), their ability to secure funding, and their presence in the media.

Which means that to win an election by universal suffrage, one mustTo be a rich, old, white man and right-wing (or at a stretch centrist). Consequently, the elected representatives by universal suffrage are not at all representative of the population that elected them (neither ideologically nor sociologically).

On the other hand, they are perfectly representative of the upper classes of a population. It was after understanding this that the liberals of the late 19th century stopped defending censitary suffrage and reluctantly supported the defense of universal suffrage (I say reluctantly, because even today we find leading right-wing politicians discreetly questioning the legitimacy of the working classes having the same voting rights as the affluent classes).

At Chouard and on the left, there is also a critique of the very principle of representation in favor of direct democracy or a revocable mandate by citizen-initiated referendum, but in this context, it is irrelevant, so I will not discuss it here.

Well, it's all very nice, but what does it have to do with our primaries, you might ask. Well, the connection is that for me this criticism applies very well to a primary. For me, the winner of a primary (even ideal) will not be the candidate who will build the most consensus among the activists (for his ideas or his ability to win), but the one who will have had the most support from the media or the barons of the left and the most money.

I would also add the fact that primaries are a very particular election in which only the upper categories vote, which further reduces the democratic nature of a primary and favors right-wing ideas to which I am deeply opposed.

Alternative to the primary

So, what to put in place of the election? I respond like Chouard: a lottery + the possibility to reject the representatives' decisions with a referendum. For me, the best way to designate a candidate is neither a primary nor a party scheme, but to randomly select a hundred NFP activists, gather them in a room with a few dozen party representatives for a week, and let them discuss until they reach 80% agreement on a candidate. And all the debates should be filmed so that we understand the reasons for this choice and none of the members of this assembly can be candidates for anything for 10 years to ensure there was no trickery. And at the end, we organize a vote reserved for NFP members, allowing them to reject this candidate if more than 50% of NFP members vote against this choice. I specify 50% of the members and not of the votes, the goal being to ensure that the chosen candidate is not violently rejected by the activists.

This method of designation, in addition to being more democratic, will avoid all the flaws I mentioned earlier. Indeed, it allows skipping the exhausting campaign stage that creates divisions and will have allowed the leader and each faction to feel heard, unlike an election where only the minority that supported the final winner from the beginning feels that their opinion is taken into account. And, we can hope that the debates will be more sincere and calm if they take place between people who have no chance of being elected one day.

And, I add that the organization of this assembly might force mainstream media to unwittingly spread the idea that democracy is not the will of the majority, but the search for the most unifying consensus through debate among equals (which is more than necessary at a time when the far right has managed to impose this very reductive vision of democracy in an attempt to legitimize its seizure of power and the destruction of the little democracy we have).

After that, it's in theory. I'm sure that if we put this idea into practice, we will discover many drawbacks. But, to know them and possibly find a solution, we must first try.

Condition for me to be in favor of a primary

However, I am well aware that my position is extremely minoritarian, and that the only alternative to yet another Mélenchon candidacy and a legion of insignificant small parties claiming to be on the left is a primary.

Here, in summary, are the problems which, if resolved, would make the primary useful and effective in advancing leftist ideas:

I am a professional translator.Ensure that the losers support the winners. If a moderate left-wing candidate from France Insoumise wins, the right represented by the PS must sincerely support them during the campaign. Conversely, if a center-left candidate like François Hollande wins, LFI must support them. It should not be like in most PS primaries (cases of Ségolène and Benoît Hamon), where the losers leave the party and go support the far-right candidate. Or support the winner but constantly threaten to leave.

For that, I have no solution, because beyond the party and ego quarrels among careerists, which are already difficult to overcome, there is the fact that there is an ideological divide too deep between a Socialist Party promoting racist, authoritarian, and neoliberal ideas while considering itself centrist, and La France Insoumise which promotes sincere social-democratic ideas, coupled with aAnti-racism and a façade of anti-authoritarianism, while considering themselves revolutionary anarchists.

How to ensure that everyone supports each other, how? How to find an acceptable compromise for all between"Out with the Arabs"and"If you don't make too much noise, you are at home here"(For dummies it was a parody, for us it's a reality.)

2)Which political movements have the right to have candidates in the left-wing primary, and who is allowed to vote? Do racist, authoritarian, neoliberal movements that claim to be on the left, such as Manuel Valls or Hidalgo, have the right to run in the primary?

Symmetrically, movements that claim to be left-wing but are conspiratorial and anti-Semitic like, for examplethe one represented byÉtienne ChouardCHOUARD : LE NÉGATIONNISTE PRÉFÉRÉ DE LA GAUCHE ? Should they be allowed to participate?

Most of these movements defend far-right ideas but try to present themselves as left-wing by adopting its symbols and themes (for example, Tatiana Ventôse). However, some like Étienne Chouard sincerely defend left-wing ideas on certain subjects. They are therefore hard to classify, and to my regret, I must admit that these bastards are indeed left-wing. But that doesn't mean I want to see them in a primary.

But I don't quite see how to filter candidates and voters on these criteria while maintaining the democratic and open aspect. How to avoid having a central committee composed of a few leaders who authorize or not the candidacies, and who thus decide the outcome in advance? How to avoid banning center-left candidates in advance by saying they are too right-wing, or conversely left-wing radical candidates with false accusations of conspiracy or anti-Semitism? And how to filter voters so that the left-wing candidate is not elected by right-wing bourgeois who think they are left-wing because their great-grandfather was a railway worker and they donate.moneyat the Resto du Cœur?

I do not have the answer to these questions, but if someone manages to answer them, then I would be in favor of a left-wing primary. Perhaps, quite simply, allow candidates to come from the PCF, LFI, and EELV, and that the voters be members, for some time, of these three parties. But that really reduces the open aspect of the primary, and it is not a very good filter.But it would prevent having, as in 2022, three left-wing candidacies in the presidential election, and a dispersion of votes that prevented the left from being present in the second round.

My favorite plausible candidate

I could not integrate it logically and smoothly into this article, but to better understand my position on choosing a candidate, I think it is also necessary to understand my position on how to win.

Very quickly for me, the elections are currently decided in a single round. For me, no matter who reaches the second round, they will win against the RN thanks to the republican barrier. To win, therefore, a candidate needs to be capable not of gathering the widest range of French people (and thus as centrist as possible) but of gathering their camp (and thus in our case, as left as possible without offending the center-left to the point that they prefer to vote right).

In summary, for me, the presidential election is no longer won in the center since the emergence of the far right in France has turned it into a one-round election.

If the election were held tomorrow, I think the most capable of meeting these criteria would be Mélenchon. However, Mélenchon is aging, and I do hope that by 2027 another figure will have emerged.

On the other hand, for me, it cannot be someone as right-wing as François Hollande or Gluskman, because they are too hated (the word is not too strong) by supporters of LFI like me and therefore unable to sufficiently unite the left to qualify for the second round (even counting on tactical voting). Sorry to the neoliberals who haven't yet turned fascist, but in my eyes a good part of LFI voters would prefer to let Macron's successor win by abstaining or voting for a small party rather than allowing the election of Hollande or Gluskman.