As this issue of Revolution goes to press, Macron has still not named the next occupant of the Hôtel Matignon. He simply dismissed the New Popular Front’s (NFP) proposal out of hand. But, from now on, the identity of the next Prime Minister is of little importance when it comes to analysing the political situation and its prospects.
Whether he comes from the ‘centre-right’, the ‘centre-left’ or elsewhere will not change the fundamental thrust of their programme, which will mean austerity and, of course, racism. Remember that former Prime Minister Élisabeth Borne ‘came’ from the ‘left’, which did not prevent her from leading the latest offensive against our pensions, and then passing an immigration law dictated by Marine Le Pen.
To analyse the parliamentary chaos, we need to start from its general premises. As we have stressed on many occasions, the decline of French capitalism – relative to other imperialist powers – is such that the bourgeoisie urgently and objectively needs drastic counter-reforms in all areas of economic and social life. This is the central reason for rejecting the candidacy of Lucie Castets, whose official programme – that of the NFP – is admittedly very moderate, but contains a series of progressive measures which the French bourgeoisie does not want to hear about.
As Guillaume Tabard wrote in Le Figaro on 26 August: “It is one thing for [Macron] to acknowledge that he lost the legislative elections; another is to allow a policy to be put in place which, particularly on the economic front, would unravel what he has patiently, and often too timidly, put in place over the past seven years.” That's a pretty good summary of the ruling class's point of view: it demands the continuation and intensification of the reactionary – “too timidly” reactionary, in its eyes – policies of the governments presided over by Macron since 2017.
Regime in crisis
This, then, is the mission of the next government: to transfer the burden of the crisis of French capitalism onto the backs of young people, workers, the unemployed, and pensioners. However, the bourgeoisie is faced with a major problem: the deep crisis of its regime and the new composition of the National Assembly make it very difficult to implement the counter-reforms and budget cuts it needs.
No absolute majority can emerge from the Palais Bourbon [meeting place of the National Assembly]. Whoever it is, the next government will have to rely, at best, on a shaky scaffolding of bargains and contradictory commitments. In other words, it will be a shifting, unstable ‘coalition’ likely to be swept aside at the first serious shock. And there will be plenty of shocks. The question of public debt, for example, is already a burning issue which would become explosive in the ever more threatening event of a new recession.
But this is still the most ‘stable’ scenario. The scaffolding in question, if it even manages to build itself up, could quickly collapse under the weight of its own internal contradictions. And, in any event, parliamentary chaos will continue to undermine what remains of the authority of the Head of State, whose resignation will be called for by a growing number of voices – on the left, but also on the right.
For a general mobilisation!
The refusal to appoint Lucie Castets to Matignon has been described as a “democratic scandal” by the leaders of the NFP. Macron is clearly trampling all over the ‘spirit’ of the constitution.
Macron is clearly trampling all over the ‘spirit’ of the constitution / Image: Faces Of The World, Flickr
But let's remember on this occasion that, from the point of view of the interests of the mass of the exploited and oppressed, bourgeois democracy is basically a permanent scandal. For example, in the first half of 2023, the ‘democratic’ government imposed the counter-reform of pensions against the will – as attested by all of the polls – of 90% of the country's wage earners.
As Lenin wrote in 1919: “the most democratic bourgeois republic is no more than a machine for the suppression of the working class by the bourgeoisie, for the suppression of the working people by a handful of capitalists.”
The leaders of France Insoumise (FI) are initiating formal proceedings to remove the head of state from office. At the same time, they are calling for demonstrations on 7 September to protest Macron's manoeuvres and force him to appoint Lucie Castets to Matignon.
Let's talk about the positive aspects of these initiatives. Yes, of course, Macron must be fired. And yes, extra-parliamentary mobilisations – on the streets – are essential. But we need to go further: only an extremely powerful movement of young people and workers will be able to put a stop to the austerity policies demanded by the bourgeoisie.
This would remain true if Lucie Castets were to be appointed Matignon. One of two things would happen: either she would be immediately overthrown by a motion of censure, or she would only be able to maintain her position by abandoning the progressive measures in the NFP's programme. Any other perspective – such as ‘Macronist’ MPs supporting the progressive measures in the NFP programme – is a dangerous fiction, because it diverts the workers' movement from the only path that is in its interests: a powerful intensification of the class struggle.
We have said it again and again since 7 July: young people and workers can expect nothing good from the new National Assembly. To defend their living and studying conditions, they can only rely on their own forces, and those of their organisations.
But let's face it: the leaders of the major political and trade union organisations of the workers' movement do not want to develop the struggle beyond a certain point. Their strategy – cautious, moderate, conciliatory and therefore powerless – reflects their reformist programme, which does not for a moment envisage expropriating the country's big bourgeoisie.
One example among many: on 28 August, the secretary general of the CGT (the General Confederation of Labour), Sophie Binet, declared that her organisation was not calling for demonstrations alongside the FI on 7 September, but nevertheless hoped that the mobilisation would be “successful”, because she considered Macron's “coup de force” to be “unacceptable”.
On reading such a statement, many workers will ask themselves the following question: if Sophie Binet really wants the demonstration on 7 September to be a success, why doesn't she contribute to it by mobilising the most powerful and militant trade union confederation in the country? To answer this simple and clear objection in advance, the General Secretary of the CGT blurts out her usual abstractions about the difference between “political struggle” and “social response”. But this is just a smokescreen, a pretext for passivity.
The truth is that Sophie Binet and her comrades at the top of the CGT want to maintain the best possible relations with bourgeois politicians. And to do this, the CGT leaders have to try to calm things down. They therefore content themselves with preparing one of their harmless ‘mobilisations’, a routine stroll called an “inter-professional day of action”. At the same time as declining the call to demonstrate on 7 September, Sophie Binet announced a ‘day of action’ on 1 October, to the hushed applause of the bourgeoisie.
The problem we have just highlighted is not new. In a sense, it is the central contradiction of the political and social situation: on the one hand, the anger of millions of exploited and oppressed people is rising steadily in the country, as the results of the parliamentary elections have shown; but on the other, the official leaders of the workers' movement are doing their utmost to confine the expression of this anger within limits acceptable to the ruling class.
Sooner or later, this contradiction will explode in the form of powerful mobilisations beyond the control of the workers' political and trade union leaderships. One thing is certain: against the backdrop of the brutal acceleration of the regime crisis, the time for such a social explosion is fast approaching.