SHIFT TO THE LEFT IN THE FRENCH ELECTIONS
By Pierre Frank
PARIS, Mar. 13 -- If the voting in the first round of the elections was mainly a question of registering preferences [see World Outlook, March 17, p. 281], in the second round the number of seats was particularly involved. To a certain degree this hinged on deals made in smoke-filled rooms, on a national as well as local scale. However, the parties propose...and the voters dispose -- providing a valuable indication of the trends in the country. The balloting yesterday resulted in a rather serious defeat for the gaullists, while the FGDS [Fédération de la Gauche Socialiste et Démocrate] and especially the PCF [Parti Communiste Frangais] won an important victory. The gaullists gained a bare majority thanks to seats they took in overseas territories (Réunion, Nouvelle Calédonie...) where the administration manipulated the elections in a shameless way.
The electoral pact between the FGDS and the PCF explains the success of these two formations, but only in part. Two important supplementary elements played a role. First, what is left of the electoral following of the Radicals did not hesitate to vote for Communist candidates on the second round. This was not the case in the municipal elections in the spring of 1965 when the procedure of Socialist and Communist candidates withdrawing in favor of each other was put into operation. The important thing here is not the number of Radical votes but the effect such a change in voting habits has on the Socialist and Radical politicians affected by it.
The second element involves de Gaulle. In the presidential election in December 1965, de Gaulle in the second round drew a majority of the votes that had been cast in the first round for Lecanuet, formerly of the MRP [Mouvement Républicain Populaire] who subsequently formed the Centre Démocrate. In the elections just held, the reverse seems to have occurred. A large number of Centre voters shifted in the second round to the candidates of the FGDS-PCF coalition, hurting the gaullists. This phenomenon appears to have been most in evidence in the cities and industrial centers. In Paris, Marseille, lyon, Bordeaux, in the north, Pas-de-Calais, etc., the gaullists suffered serious setbacks and some well~known figures were defeated.
A preliminary conclusion can be drawn from this fact -- there is no de gaullism outside of de Gaulle. When he passes from the scene, France is certain to be faced with a grave crisis. The evening before the vote, Lecanuet was shouting at the top of his lungs that de Gaulle had weakened the center and thrown the left out of balance with regard to the PCF. In a more subtle way, Giscard d'Estaing indicated the same thing while congratulating himself that in presenting himself as "Fifth Republic" he had not suffered the setback dealt the gaullists as a whole.
In any case, in the immediate future de Gaulle will face no major difficulties in view of the miserable role assigned to the National Assembly under his regime.
Where does the opposition now stand? In the euphoria of success, everybody was talking last night about uniting still more, working out a program to show that a genuine alternative government solution is offered, etc. But this was election night euphoria. The FGDS is a patchwork formation. It includes the masses who follow the Socialist party headed by Guy Mollet, and men like Mitterrand, not to mention a maverick like Mendés-France. What about the PSU [Parti Socialiste Unifié]? It is still too early to see how this disparate assemblage will evolve.
As for the PCF, its leadership will not fail to say that they were right, that "the unity of the left" must be strengthened, etc. Very likely its strongly rightist orientation will become more accentuated, class lines being still more blurred.
To a considerable extent, the outcome of the March 12 elections will reinforce parliamentary illusions. But the electoral success of the left, particularly the success of the PCF, will also have other consequences which, without putting the parliamentary illusions in question can prove beneficial in the extraparliamentary field. On the economic level, where there is considerable discontent, it is possible that the parliamentary success will play a role in stimulating struggles for improvements. The shift to the left in the parliamentary field occurs amidst great confusion among the working class due to the policies of the traditional worker leaderships. But the shift to the left can, due to the electoral success itself, favor movements in which the working class acts as a class.
In the course of the coming weeks, each of the various formations is sure to draw its own lessons from the election results and the tendencies will emerge more clearly than the morning immediately following the balloting.