American Views Abroad


Sunday, May 29, 2005
 
A beautiful Sunday in May here in Hamburg, but talk of elections whether the perhaps upcoming German elections in September or the more immediate French vote today on the European constitution is the number one topic. An American group in France has been having a very interesting debate on how the French might vote and why. Here are some highlights from a rather long piece an Englishman living in France wrote yesterday about his impression of the debate:


The oui have been using all the arguments I thought they would, but to my surprise they are not working. The fear argument seems to have worked the other way round. People are not afraid to take a chance and say no. No one knows what will happen if the no wins, and everyone knows there will be increased uncertainty suddenly. We have been told this over and over.
And still people will take the risk and vote non. This is not normal. Something is going on. People do not usually vote for uncertainty and risk.

The 'don't ruin it for everyone else' argument seems to have not worked. Even now, in addition to the words and warnings of the political elite of France, there are constant warnings from other European leaders. They all seem quite clear that they will be very disappointed in the French people, and in France, if they do anything to delay or change the direction of
the Euro train. They tell the people that everything is fine, this is just an even better extension of what we Europeans have been doing for 50 years. And in some sense it is, that is, more or less an extension of what has been happening all along. And it's probably better, in the sense of making everything slightly tidier and adding a few new clauses, all directed to carrying on in much the same vein. But for some reason, an astounding number of French people, in a great variety (the non is obviously not homogenous in any sense, nor is the oui), do not mind 'ruining it' for everyone else. We ignore the fact that the Netherlands, Denmark, Czechoslovakia, Britain and Ireland at least have some doubts as well. Those French somehow insist on their right to be French, to say non, to make the train take another track. This is not a big surprise. But many write this off, especially the foreign press, as a peculiar French trait. In France there has been a very long and very informational filled campaign. In my experience of politics, this has been the longest, most detailed and most occupying political campaign I have known. I guess maybe it's simple, and one document so everyone has the same text. I think more people have been talking about politics, through the constitution debate, than in any other election I know. There is often great passion in normal elections, but usually nothing of substance. Here there were top politicians forced to discuss with loads of people the issues themselves. Everyone agrees that the press /media bias was overwhelmingly yes, as were all the 'normal' parties. But still loads of grass roots publications, and loads of grass roots organising. I heard over 200 local non committees in France sprang up. I started getting stuff in the autumn about it in Attac, and there were a few articles in the mass press last year. But basically it has been going on for months. You can find someone to debate, maybe, the oui or non value of every single article in the constitution. Each will argue with intelligence or stupidity, ignorance or studied understanding, that this or that article will be great for 'us' or not. So what does this rather unusual discussion mean?

One meaning is that all the publicity, politics, debates about words and meanings, campaigns of fear or reason, has nearly been done, and crudest equality of mass democracy has been very well practiced in a strange way, oui or non. Sometimes the debate was really classy. Regardless of who wins, the voting camps are clear. To me anyway. Those who are comfortable and who are able to look the future in the eye and not be afraid, those people will vote yes, to a greater extent. Those who cannot look the future in the eye without serious apprehension, and who see 'more of the same' to be not that good for them and 'their kind', they will vote non, more or less.


.... I think the French realise that there is not going to be a serious debate in any other country that anyone outside that country hears. The debates when legislatures approve the treaty, seem to be non-existent. The legislatures vote for approval in overwhelming numbers. The debate in Spain hardly happened. The one in Britain will be basically British and involve no sophistication at all. In a sense I think the French think, consciously or not, that they are speaking for more than themselves. Maybe they are.

.... But if I were to sum it all up, and try to find one variable that would explain the most variance, the single thing that struck me most…I would say it was comfort and wealth. Those who are happy with life in France, more or less happy, more or less have enough of what they want, those who can pay all the bills and are confident their job will last for quite a while, those who have adequate housing and a car that works, they vote oui. Those who are afraid, unhappy, feel a bit left out, don't have any sense of security in a changing world, they vote non. Generally. And I guess France is, overall, about fifty fifty on that dimension. As the vote will be.

So we shall see.

Here too a comment by Timothy Garton Ash on this topic in The Guardian yesterday. www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1492196,00.html#article_continue.

Comments: Post a Comment


Disclaimer: American Views Abroad is not responsible for offsite content. All links in blog entires are external offsite links, unless otherwise indicated.