David Lowe

The Left in the Political System

Until 1981, the Left had not held national office for nearly a quarter of a century. Although there were occasions when its return to power seemed possible, particularly in the 1970s, potential was not translated into reality. Every national election held after the Fifth Republic was established in 1958 was lost; in all, six parliamentary elections and three presidentials. As a result, the coalition of Right-Centre forces which emerged after 1958 to support General de Gaulle’s presidency enjoyed an occupancy in office, the longevity of which, amongst other major governments of the democratic world, was surpassed only by the Right-dominated coalitions of Italy and Japan.

The Development of the Modern Political Parties of the Left

The division of history into periods and eras is an important but, inevitably, somewhat arbitrary process. Depending on the foci of concern and the level of sophistication required an almost infinite variety of possibilities exists for any extended period of time. It seems reasonable, given that our concern here is limited to providing merely a general account of major developments, to divide our analysis into two broad periods: from the beginning of the Third Republic until 1920; from 1920 to the collapse of the Fourth Republic. This framework could, of course, be extended in many ways but it does allow us to mark the most important turning points. Although embryonic parties of the Left existed as far back as the post-1789 Revolutionary period, it was only in the early years of the Third Republic that they began to become established. Their evolution and formation until immediately after the First World War was thereafter gradual and steady. However the shock waves which emanated from the Russian Revolution had a cataclysmic effect and resulted, in 1920, in the rupture — between communists and socialists — that has plagued the Left ever since. Consequently, 1920 witnessed the beginning of a new era, an era that can be extended to the end of the Fourth Republic when constitutional and institutional changes helped to produce another transformational effect on the political parties of the Left.

Postscript: The Left and the Assumption of Power

The Metz Congress of 1979, where Mitterrand, in alliance with CERES, retained control of the Party, did little to settle the personal and ideological differences which since the 1978 election defeat had made the PS look increasingly like the loosest of coalitions. When, in 1980, the Socialists began the process of selecting their presidential candidate the struggle for power was as sharp as ever.

The Socialist Party

In France the political party which has most openly borne the colours of socialism has always been a party of contradictions. In spite of the resuscitation and rejuvenation which it has experienced since 1969 it continues to face many of the dilemmas and divisions which have plagued it since its foundation in 1905.

The Communist Party

From the early 1920s, when it was Bolshevised, until the present day the PCF has continually displayed three central features. Each has closely interacted with the other and each has seen its nature, emphasis and relative importance vary in accordance with changing circumstances. Taken together the three have combined to make up what may be described as the enduring core of the Party.

What is the Left

French political history since 1789 is, at first sight, highly complex, with upheaval and lack of continuity its most prominent features.

The Alternative Left

Beyond the mainstream currents of the Left there exist may minor political groups which, in spite of their size, have made a considerable contribution to the development and impact of socialism in France. Most commonly they are referred to as the far-Left, the extreme-Left, or the ultra-Left, although other descriptions are sometimes heard. Touchard, for example, prefers ‘independent Left’.1 We shall employ the term ‘alternative Left’ which, to us, is strongly suggestive of the difficulty of placing the many different and continually changing groups in a single category, whilst simultaneously indicating that there is something common between them. That something is an unconventional approach to political activity which lays little emphasis on electoralism, but great stress on the development of philosophical ideas linked to critical agitation and direct action.

The Left in the Fifth Republic: The Struggle for Unity

Attempts to achieve some sort of Left-wing unity are not peculiar to the Fifth Republic. As we saw in Chapter 2 efforts were made throughout the Third and Fourth Republics to heal, or at least paper over, the divisions which have been so much a part of the history of the Left and such a source of its weakness. These efforts ranged from attempts to bring about organic unity between the SFIO and the PCF to temporary and tenuous electoral alliances between the SFIO and the Radicals.

The Trade Unions and the Left

An overall assessment of the political impact of trade unionism in France would have to conclude that it has not been as great as might have been expected in a country where the politicians of the Left have usually failed to offer coherent, let alone united, leadership. There has been no question of unionism providing, in the absence of regular governments of the Left, a vigorous alternative avenue for ‘progressive’ social change. Indeed, far from that, trade unions have not even been able to act as a buttress to the party political Left in the way that they do in Britain, Sweden, West Germany and elsewhere. They have been internally weak and their relationships with the political parties that ostensibly represent the working-class movement have always been enigmatic. Both the ouvrierisme of the PCF and the class rhetoric of the Socialists have testified to the need of the parties for close co-operation with the trades unions. Inevitably, unions in their turn have frequently sought the support and the backing of the principal Left-wing parties. But there have been so many different motives, cross-cutting pressures, and sources of dissension on both sides, that clear and consistent relationships between the parties and the union movement as a whole have never been possible. In much the same way as the parties, the main trade unions have usually found it difficult to agree on anything other than immediate tactics. The ideological perspectives of the individual unions have clashed sharply, with the consequence that they have perceived their political roles in quite different ways. The few periods when they have co-operated with one another have coincided with the periods of unity and strength of the party political Left: during the Popular Front, the immediate post-Liberation years, and the era of the Union de la Gauche. As a result, the unions have been quite unable to act either as a catalyst for party political unity or as a substitute for party political disunity.

The Left at Local Level

Although France is a highly centralised country, considerable importance still attaches to the layers of government below the national level. There are three of these: regional, departmental and municipal. Regional government is the weakest. Its role is essentially advisory, principally in the area of economic development, and this is reflected in the fact that the 22 regional councils (conseils regionaux) are not directly elected but are made up of the deputies and senators of the region plus nominees from the municipal and departmental councils. The departements, of which there are 96, have rather more influence. They are required to provide some limited services — notably on roads, school buildings, and social security — and they have their own directly elected departmental councils (conseils generaux). The councils work, however, under tight central guidelines and on a limited budget. The main importance probably lies in the role they play as mediating agents between central and local interests. It is the municipal councils — which are based on France’s 36,000 communes — which have the greatest potential for directly exercising power and influence. Matters for which they have at least some responsibility include planning, housing, public transport, social welfare, and educational facilities. In practice the power municipalities actually exercise is closely related to size and in this they vary enormously; over 11,000 have less than 200 inhabitants, over 32,000 have less than 2000, whilst the larger cities have hundreds of thousands. Clearly the smaller communes have not the population, and therefore also not the resources, to provide the services expected by modern society. As a consequence they are very heavily dependent on the state and work under the close guidance of its various local representatives, in particular the prefect and his staff. In the larger towns however councils and their mayors (who are key political figures, unlike in Britain) can, and often do, provide a strong countervailing force to the national government.