France and Britain: What Do the Elections Tell Us?

The elections held in the first week of July in the two major imperialist countries of Europe revealed new signs of the major trends at work in the world today. Both elections and the political developments around them have added to the evidence that the system crisis of capitalism continues to deepen and that there is no way out within the system even for the basic problems of the working people. In both countries, the ruling bourgeoisie is making a sworn effort to eliminate alternatives that could mean any slight improvement in favour of the working people. Even in the most developed and richest centre countries, the bourgeoisie cannot tolerate the slightest concessions to the working class. Capitalism is in a historical deadlock and cannot afford even modest improvements, let alone the promise of a positive future that would inspire the working class. This is despite the fact that we are living through a period in which the wealth of the owners of the system is soaring.

The political frameworks, mechanisms, parties and conventions that have prevailed in the advanced capitalist countries for almost 80 years, and which have formed the basis of the experience of almost four generations, are being shaken. The centre-right and centre-left parties are clearly losing ground. The working masses, who have been betrayed by the centre parties for a long historical period and have accumulated anger, are increasingly inclined to listen to those who say they are against this “system” identified with the parties in question. In order to prevent or limit the reaction of the workers and their growing questioning on this basis from shifting to the left, the order is developing the fascist option.

As a manifestation of the deadlock and decay of the system, extraordinary, out-of-rule, out-of-procedure, out-of-common actions and developments are now more frequent on the bourgeois political scene. Although there are many examples, we can mention the most recent ones, such as the armed assassination attempt against Trump, the refusal of Macron to give the New People’s Front the task of forming a government by flagrantly violating the customs, although it came first in the elections with the highest number of votes, and the stubborn attempt of Biden, who has seriously lost his faculties, to continue his presidential candidacy for a long time in a country like the USA. Again, as examples from the near past, we can mention the inability to form a stable government in the UK in recent years, the endless succession of scandals, the plots to overthrow the left-wing Jeremy Corbyn, who had taken over the leadership of the Labour Party, and so on. In short, even in these richest, most developed imperialist countries there is no political stability, the bourgeoisie cannot form stable governments.

The elections in both France and the United Kingdom presented manifestations of this instability in various aspects. First of all, the elections in both countries were early elections announced by sudden decisions. Having lost the semblance of legitimacy, the governments tried to reassure the order by announcing early elections. The main reason for their decision to call early elections was to eliminate as soon as possible the possibility that the rising working class resentment would rise further and open the door to non-establishment pursuits. In the UK, the rulers have achieved their goal at least for the time being and postponed the crisis for a while, while in France the goal was not achieved and a new period of crisis started the day after the election.

France

When it became clear (even before the results were finalised) that Le Pen’s fascist National Rally would win the EU parliamentary elections in June, Macron dissolved the national parliament and called early elections. The date for the elections, which would normally be held three years later, was set in just 20 days. Macron’s immediate aim in calling such a snap election was to quickly exploit the outrage caused by the victory of the fascist party in the EU parliamentary elections. In this way he would once again turn the situation, which has occurred in many elections in France in recent years, into a trap for the working class and socialists and play the game of diverting the votes of the masses with leftist sensibilities into his channel. However, the results of the early elections, which were announced with these intentions, did not turn out as the Macronist forces intended.

The main reason for this was that the major left parties (France Unbowed, the Socialist Party, the Communist Party and the Greens) unexpectedly formed a new alliance (the New Popular Front) within a few days. Macron calculated that these left-wing parties would not be able to unite among themselves for various reasons, and that the resulting state of confusion and alarm would force the public to choose between him and the fascist option. They were going to present the fascists, whom they called the “extreme right”, as a great danger to the public and market themselves as the reasonable choice against them, and they did so. Therefore, in France, on the one hand, we witnessed the mobilisation of large sections of the population with anti-fascist sensitivities, especially the organised sections of the working class and the socialists, against the fascist danger. On the other hand, we saw the attempt of certain sections of the bourgeoisie to use these sensitivities for Macron to maintain his power.

Fundamental problems such as the deepening crisis, increasing impoverishment, the decline in public services enjoyed by working people, and growing inequality have increased politicisation and polarisation in France, and there has been a huge increase in voter turnout. In the general election in 2022, the turnout rate rose by 20 points from 47 per cent to 67 per cent. This was the highest rate since 1981. In the first round of the election with this turnout, the fascist alliance (National Rally) came first with 33 per cent, the left alliance came second with 28 per cent, and the alliance supporting the ruling Macron came only third with 21 per cent. This was a new example of the general trend of decline and collapse of the centre parties identified with capitalist attacks. Once again it was seen that while the fascist movement is gaining strength on the one hand, the search for the left is increasing on the other. In the second round, in some electoral districts, anti-fascist sentiment turned mainly towards the left alliance after one of the opponents of the fascist party candidate withdrew in favour of the other. Thus, the left alliance overtook the first round winner, the fascist party, and reached the highest number of seats (193) in the 577-seat parliament. However, with 164 seats for the second fascist party and 143 for the third Macronist party, this was not enough for an absolute majority and the left alliance was unable to form a government on its own.

Le Pen’s fascist party is gaining strength by exploiting the resentment of the workers against the deepening crisis of capitalism, as in all civil fascist experiences in history. Almost all fascist movements and parties that have risen in the developed capitalist countries in recent decades emphasise the immigrant population as the main problem. However, as is the case in France today, they are not content with a reactionary, racist and nationalist discourse in a direct sense. They also put forward some economic-social demands that will attract the attention of the working class. As a matter of fact, the fascist alliance in France also makes promises that appeal to the workers on some topics such as the retirement age, some taxes levied on workers, taxes on farmers. This point is important because such promises play an important role in attracting some sections of the working class and some other labouring layers to the fascist movement. Fascism never gains mass scope through blunt nationalist-racist rhetoric, it always uses a number of seemingly pro-working class socio-economic promises that are put forward as if they will solve important urgent problems of the class.

On the other hand, the fact that anti-fascist sentiment was still strong in France provided the basis for focusing on the growing fascist threat. But it was not only because of this sensitivity that the left front made progress. The programme of the new popular front included demands for a partial improvement in the working class’s living and working conditions. Although we have used the word “improvement” here, we must emphasise that the demands in question are essentially an “improvement” which means only a partial compensation for what the working class has lost as a result of the severe attacks carried out by capital in France, as in the whole world, for many years. Nevertheless, we must point out that they are not insignificant in the conditions of the scale of the losses due to the policy of betrayal pursued by the trade unions and parties representing the working class for many years, the general state of disorganisation of the class, the need of the class to gain positions/morale and the aggressive intolerance of capital.

To mention them briefly: The repeal of the pension law introduced by Macron, the main pillar of which was to raise the retirement age to 65. The new left-wing alliance promises to lower it to 60, as it was before 2010. It also promises to raise the minimum wage by 14 per cent to 1,600 euros, to link public sector pay rises to the rate of inflation and to increase social benefits, to freeze food, energy and fuel prices, to increase rent subsidies by 10 per cent, to reduce income tax and social security deductions for low-income earners and to introduce a wealth tax on the rich.

These promises are undoubtedly urgent for working people. But even this modest programme seems to have raised the hackles of capital. The BBC’s report begins with the phrase “promises that will significantly increase France’s already high public spending”. But it may be more revealing to look at the attitude of Le Figaro, one of France’s leading newspapers, towards the new left front, and in particular its largest and most left-wing component, Melenchon’s LFI (Unbowed France). The attitude of Le Figaro is an important indicator of how certain sections of the bourgeoisie view the fascist option. Let us remember that the bourgeois family that owns this newspaper is also the owner of the company that produces the Rafale jets, the so-called French fighter jets. Le Figaro declared that the second round of the election would be between Melenchon and Bardella, the current leader of the fascist party, and argued that one should not vote for Melenchon, who is described as a left danger.

There have already been many signs and developments that the fascist party is increasingly recognised in the upper echelons of capital. Now, as a new example, the open behaviour of Le Figaro and of a big member of the military industry is very significant. Generally speaking, today even those bourgeois sectors which have taken a position against the fascist option consider the so-called “far left” options, which are at most left-reformist, as worse. In fact, in the post-election process of electing the president of the parliament and forming the government, the effort to block the left is being made together with the fascists. With the support of some fascist deputies, Macron’s candidate has already been elected president of the parliament.

Macron is now trying to split the left alliance, taking advantage of its fragmented structure and the different tendencies it contains. This effort is essentially based on the exclusion of Melenchon and his party, which is seen as the most “radical” component of the alliance. In order to form a new government, Macron and capital are trying to mobilise support from within the left-wing alliance, while also seeking support from other right-wing parties. If he forms such a government, however, he will be under pressure from the left on the one hand and the fascist party on the other. On every issue that the parliament has to decide, the distribution of seats and this left-right pressure will undermine his ability to govern. A similar situation will arise if a government of technocrats is formed, as has been rumoured from time to time. In short, it seems unlikely that Macron will be able to form and maintain a stable government under conditions where working people are burdened with serious problems. The fascists, who argue that they should have come to power, propagate that they were deprived of it because of the unnatural alliance of very different tendencies against them in the second round of the elections. And they insist that their government has only been postponed for a short time. It is clear that in the coming period they will try to use the discontent caused by the deepening of the crisis to expand their base and their electorate. The truth is that in a period like this, with Macron in the presidential chair, whoever gets involved in the government will lose. We can say that France has entered a period of new struggles. Here, the working class revolutionaries and socialists have great tasks. On the one hand, it is necessary to weave a resistance by mobilising the working class against the new attacks to be carried out by the government, on the other hand, it is necessary to further strengthen the sensitivity against the fascist danger. This is the only way to defeat the capitalist attacks and stop the fascists’ march to power.

Britain

The UK has been governed by Conservative Party governments for the last 14 years. However, capital, so to speak, has not been able to establish a stable government in the UK since before the Brexit vote in 2016. Even the Brexit referendum itself was a move by the worn-out Conservative Party government of the day to secure a vote of confidence. But the move backfired and the referendum, in which the winds of demagoguery blew, resulted in a “No” vote. There followed a change of prime minister without an election. The turmoil of the Brexit process was added to the general crisis. After a process of blunder after blunder, scandal after scandal, the Brexiteers came to power under the leadership of the demagogue Johnson. Brexit, which was supposed to bring relief under the influence of demagogic propaganda, on the contrary, brought heavy burdens, which naturally fell on the backs of the working class. Rising prices and the increasing cost of living have further crippled the working class.

As discontent has grown, so have strikes and protests. As the illusion that Brexit would be a panacea for all ills has been shattered, it has become clear that the Conservative Party’s time in power has come to an end. Moreover, this was a Conservative Party that had moved to the right to an unprecedented degree and was openly hostile to immigrants in order to hold on to the ground that was gradually slipping away from underneath it. As a result, the British bourgeoisie decided that the job had to change hands immediately and be placed in trustworthy hands. Keir Starmer, the man of the British deep state who was put in charge of the Labour Party after Jeremy Corbyn was removed from office by conspiracies, was the ideal person for the job. With Starmer, the Labour Party has been handed over to one of the most right-wing leaderships in its history.

In these circumstances, Rishi Sunak, the latest in a series of Conservative prime ministers who have failed to deliver, did not wait for the normal election time and announced a snap election. But regardless of the specific electoral context, all the regular polls showed that the Conservative Party had lost a lot of votes and that Labour was ahead. This was not because Starmer’s Labour Party was admired or hoped for. There is no reason to doubt that an early election was deliberately called to hand over power to His Majesty’s opposition without incident.

So while under Corbyn’s leadership the bourgeois media completely turned against Labour and waged a smear campaign, in the run-up to the last election Labour received sympathetic attention from the biggest organs of the bourgeois media. Even right-wing newspapers such as The Sun and the Financial Times openly declared their support for Starmer’s Labour against the rotten Tories. In contrast, one of the largest trade unions, Unite, announced that it would not support the party’s manifesto because it was not sufficiently pro-worker.

The election results show that the Conservative Party lost an enormous amount of votes, while Labour received even fewer votes than in the previous election, which it had lost. True, Labour won the election, but Labour with Starmer did not create a wave of hope and excitement among the working masses. In fact, unlike in France, the turnout fell by 7.5 percentage points on the previous election to 59.9 per cent. It is not surprising that a right-wing leadership so committed to neo-liberal policies, to the imperialist world war in progress, to the Zionist policies of brutality and genocide did not create any hope. The working masses, thoroughly disgusted with the Conservative Party, punished it and turned in despair and without enthusiasm to the Labour Party and partly to the new party of the fascist Nigel Farage, Reform UK. Due to the undemocratic nature of the British electoral system, the Labour Party won over 60% of the seats in Parliament, despite having only 33% of the vote. The Conservative Party, which came second, lost 20 points and fell to 23% of the vote, the lowest in its history, while Farage’s Reform UK party held on to 15%.

The record-breaking 42.6 per cent of the total vote received by the small parties is a remarkable figure, in line with the general global trend of the collapse of the major centre parties. It should also be noted that the Scottish National Party, which was once on the rise, lost a large proportion of its votes and seats in Scotland. The fact that Scottish nationalism, which has no progressive aspects or dynamics, is no different from the Conservatives in terms of economic and social policy has increased the disappointment of the Scottish working masses.

Starmer came to the Labour Party to liquidate Jeremy Corbyn, who stood for more left-wing policies and was particularly opposed to the sensitive policies of British imperialism. Indeed, after winning the internal leadership election, he largely purged the left-wing tendency within the party that had grown stronger with Corbyn. As part of this process, Corbyn was stigmatised within the party through investigations based on false accusations of anti-Semitism and even expelled from the party. One of the main arguments of the attack on Corbynism during and after this period was that it had gone too far to the left, that this had alienated the masses from the party and made it impossible to win elections. However, with the “corrections” made to the right, the party received even fewer votes than under Corbyn. Moreover, Corbyn won the election in the region where he stood as an independent candidate.

Starmer will now play his part as the new face of British capitalism in crisis and the offensive policies of imperialism. Although there is a discourse that some improvements will be made, there should be no doubt that this means deceiving and distracting the working class. The working class will be subjected to new attacks by Starmer as a continuation of the previous attacks. Rachel Reeves, the new Chancellor of the Exchequer, who previously worked as an economist at the Bank of England, declared in a statement that all spending would be linked to growth. Given the general crisis of world capitalism and the relative deterioration of British capitalism among the advanced capitalist countries, this means that there will be no tangible increase in public spending, i.e. no improvement in the living conditions of the working class. Another way of putting the linking of social spending to growth is that the new government will make no effort to change the distribution of income in favour of the working class. The same minister also said that the fiscal rules followed by the outgoing Conservative government must be adhered to. It was precisely these rules that were part of the attacks on the working class that buried that government at the ballot box. “I will put my energy and political capital into growing the economy”, says the fresh minister, “and some of that will mean tough choices, difficult decisions and angering some people”. The message is clear enough: the attacks on the working class will continue!

The working class has already shown the will to resist against the attacks it suffers and has been fighting for some time, although only partially. There are even big protests against the Zionist policy of massacres in the Middle East and the British imperialism that supports this policy. Similarly, the working class in France is raising the banner of struggle on different occasions. The anti-fascist protests and actions on the occasion of the last elections are another manifestation of this. As we mentioned in the beginning, the order has lost its ability to make improvements and reforms in favour of the working class. The multifaceted attacks continue with even more aggravation and the working class has no other way but to fight.