After the vote on the European Constitution
After the NO
June 27, 2005
In the spring of 2005, an astonishing phenomenon emerged—first in France, then rapidly spreading to other European countries. But let's first examine what happened in France.
Personally, I believe this phenomenon was historic, even though the matter ultimately came to nothing. Indeed, the campaign in favor of a positive vote, intended to secure ratification of the European Constitution, was preceded by an unprecedented media blitz, a relentless, all-encompassing barrage. In our media, the time allocated to supporters of the YES far exceeded that given to opponents—sometimes doubling it. This imbalance prompted a large number of journalists to sign a petition denouncing this breach of professional ethics. Prominent public figures threw their weight into the scales. First, the head of state, who staked his reputation, credibility, and presented this approval as a matter of common sense, civic duty, and public well-being, “endorsed by the seal of reason.” Then came the Prime Minister, Raffarin, who, with the air of an authoritarian high school principal, played the role of “fireman” for three long years, accumulating unpopularity with every unpopular measure. Add to this 80 or 85 percent of the political class. Among "leading political personalities," only Laurent Fabius, Emmanuelli, and Chevènement publicly backed the NO. To this must be added the representatives of the Communist Party.
It would take pages to list all the advocates of the YES, who presented it as an obvious necessity. I remember a statement by Jack Lang, concluding:
*- You will vote YES on this constitution, because it is a good constitution. *
Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the former "Dany the Red" of 1968, of German nationality, and a representative of the Greens in the European Parliament, actively campaigned across France in favor of the YES. We saw Straus-Kahn, the Socialist, interviewing a high-ranking German political official, translating his statements into French, as the official came to explain that in his country, the European Constitution had been adopted by 90 or 95 percent of the vote in their national assembly.
Major newspapers raised their voices. You’ll recall bold front-page headlines declaring "They’re lying to you!" Everything was used—the most clichéd tricks, no doubt advised by "communication consultants." Whenever Laurent Fabius or Chevènement had airtime on television, this was followed by a plea from Jean-Marie Le Pen, attending a political dinner for two hundred guests, or from the former valet of Le Pen, whose name I’ve forgotten, gathering a quarter of that number. When this right-wing specter wasn’t enough, they turned to the far left. Footage showed a very small number of men and women, proudly unfurling red flags. The message was clear:
*- If you vote NO, not only will you be shooting down Europe’s future, but you’ll also be voting against France, joining the voices of racists and dangerous agitators. *
The "debates," such as those hosted by Christine Ockrent, were utterly lacking in substance. We heard the elderly Giscard d'Estaing speak of his pride in having significantly contributed to drafting this text. What a splendid revival of his political career (as it might have been for Chirac) to potentially become the first "President of Europe."
Everything—absolutely everything—was mobilized to ensure the project’s passage. Some voters wrote to me: "Mr. Petit, in my constituency, the YES ballots are printed on high-quality, sturdy paper, while the NO ballots are on terrible, inferior paper!"
Yet despite all this, it failed. Regardless of the motivations of individuals, the NO won with 55 percent of the vote. The political class suffered total defeat. Raffarin was dismissed and vanished like a trapdoor. Chirac’s popularity plummeted to 26 percent.
A President of the Republic is supposed to be "the President of all the French." But the Fifth Republic, designed by de Gaulle to overcome the impotence of the Fourth Republic—where Prime Ministers succeeded each other at a frantic pace—granted the head of state significant power. Let us briefly recall the essential features of the previous constitution, the Fourth Republic, which de Gaulle so harshly criticized. Executive power was held by a Prime Minister appointed by the President of the Republic, whose sole role was to find the individual who, at any given moment, best represented the opinion of the majority of the French people. This majority was believed to be reflected by the members of the National Assembly, elected by the people. The Prime Minister then governed at will, whatever the circumstances. Occasionally, when a strong opposition emerged, he would seek the confidence of the deputies through a "vote of confidence." If this vote went against him, he had to resign, and the President of the Republic had to appoint another.
De Gaulle replaced this system with a more direct one—through the referendum—inviting the French people to express themselves directly, rather than through their representatives in the National Assembly. It was thus that he eventually left power, in &&& (I no longer recall the exact date). For de Gaulle, it was:
*- Do you agree with my policies, with the way I’m steering the country? Answer me yes or no. *
Upon the first negative vote, in accordance with the spirit of the constitution he had created in his own image, it was understood that he no longer had the support and approval of the majority of the French people, and so he resigned and withdrew from political life.
Given the massive failure our current president had just suffered, he should have normally resigned. Given the glaring contradiction between the democratic will expressed by the vote and the positions held by 85 percent of what is now called "the political class," he should have dissolved the National Assembly and sent voters back to the polls for a double choice: their representatives in the National Assembly and their President of the Republic. He did nothing of the sort—especially because such a resignation would have immediately reignited the long-standing judicial proceedings against him, for embezzlement and misuse of corporate assets. On the contrary, had the YES succeeded, and if he had been named "President of Europe," this would have extended his protection from justice for years to come through the immunity granted to elected representatives.
Even more astonishing: he appointed Villepin (who had never been elected by anyone) as his Prime Minister, a fervent supporter of the YES. The ministerial reshuffles were laughably trivial, following the style of "same as before, let’s do it again."
What happened at the top of the state found its echo within political parties. François Hollande, Secretary of the Socialist Party, expelled Laurent Fabius from his party’s executive committee because he had not followed the party’s voting instructions and had adopted...