Le Pen - why?

[C Elegans]

Le Pen - and the increasing popularity of the ultra-right

If you follow international news, you know that the right wing extremist Le Pen has appeared as the man running for president in competition with current president Chirac. Le Pen is the leader of the National Front party, an ultra-nationalistic party with anti-immigration policy, abolition of taxes and leaving the EU on it's agenda.

Le Pen has made a fortune from selling Hitler's speeches. In his youth he had nazi sympathies, and he has been judged by court to pay a large fee for calling the WWII concentration camps "a detail".
Le Pen has made several explicit racist statements in public. He has critisised the French national football team for having too many players with North African background (for you who may not know this, France has a large population with ethic background from France's former colonies, like Algeria and Morocco). In his speeches, he uses emotional arguments such as "the immigrants eat the soup on your tables and sleep with your wives and daughters" and "Against the invasion of foreign immigration we say: This is France, our home, and only those for whom France is their cherished fatherland are welcome here!"
Le Pen is also explicitly against homosexuality, and he wants women to quit working and turn back to stoves. It difficult to believe that the French have put their votes on this man!

France, as a country with a long social democratic tradition with leaders such as Mitterand or de Gaulle, now faces an election where one candidate is the right wing Chirac who many people have been very dissatisfied with, and the right wing extremist Le Pen and his immigrant- and women-discrimination politics. How could this happen? The French, like the Americans and many other Europeans, have suffered from disillusion and disappointment in politicans for some time now, and this leads to lack of engangement in politics. 1/3 of the population did not vote, something they might regret today, since this is believed to be one of the reasons for Le Pen's unexpected success. Other reasons (according to European media) are Le Pen's ability to plea to people's general dissatisfaction. He is an excellent speaker, very charismatic and with a great command of the language. He is skillful in finding tailormade his messages for different groups, and . Some political analysts say Le Pen shares many features with Hitler.
Fortunately, the French seems to have awoke from their political slumber - there where hughe Mayday demonstrations against Le Pen all over the country.

I have always disliked Chirac strongly, but compared to Le Pen, he is certainly the lesser evil. Let's hope France will keep Chirac as their president.

Still thought, it's worth discussing the recent success of not only Le Pen in France, but the success of the ultra-right nationalists in several European countries such as Austria, Swizerland and Denmark(!).

What do you think? What are the reasons for their increasing popularity in the last years? Does this demonstrate problems with democracy? What will the implication be? What can be done about it?

EDIT: I changed the title of thread, as to allow discussion about the recent increase in popularity of ultra-right parties in many European countries.

EDIT II: The title didn't change, only the subtitle? Oh well, I hope you will post about the broader topic anyway.

[Mysteria]

IMHO, one thing Le Pen has used to get votes is the security question in France. Somehow, security has risen to be quite an important issue. If there really is an inscurity issue, or if it has only been pushed up by the politicians, the medi, etc, is difficult to say. But apparently a larger group of people has grown worried for their safety, and Le Pen promises safety. I guess, some people are even so worried about their safety that they vote for Le Pen, ignoring his racist tendencies. Also, it's often easier to just blame everything on the foreigners than look why something actually does go wrong.

Now, what has really made me shake my head, are all those manifestations after the vote. If there are so many people out there that don't want Le Pen as their president, why didn't they vote then? It really makes me wonder how many of those out there on the streets did vote. It is certainly a good thing that there are manifestations, especially from those that can't even yet vote, but still, I get the impression that the French didn't really understand what voting is all about.

I sincerely hope that they'll vote now, and remember the lesson, so they go vote straight away next time, not wait until they have the desaster. What makes me think too, is that it was actually 40% of the 18-24 (or 25, can't remember) old that didn't vote! I do think that that did contribute for a not so small part to Le Pen's rise.

One thing I think would be good for democracy is to make voting compulsory, so if there is a vote, we're sure that everybody at least participated in it, not letting others vote in their place.

Now, that's my thoughts on France, but I don't really have a clue about why the other contries have got this right tendency.

(I have to admit, I'm not really very interested in politics myself , but I do know whom not to vote for, and I do vote)

[T'lainya]

I don’t think the problem is with democracy but with society looking for simple solutions to complex problems. IMO some of the factors that have led to these situations.

1.Playing off peoples distrust or fear of different culture. It’s easy to “demonize” immigrants as they generally have less political power. Sometimes there are language barriers, unfamiliarity with legal and social options, possible lack of citizenship (for voting purposes). All of these contribute to immigrants being easier to target in hate speeches.
2.Social assistance/economic concern. Many people perceive immigrants right or wrong as being on welfare or other subsidies. They also see them as “taking jobs away” from legal citizens. Here in the American Southwest whenever there’s a downturn in the economy, the anti immigration rhetoric heats up. People who have been laid off or lost their jobs seem to need a scapegoat. It’s easier to blame someone for getting a job they feel they deserved, than to upgrade their skills or search in a new field. (That’s a bit simplistic since it’s also not easy to go to back to school and support a family).The point is people tend to lash out when scared and are more likely to follow someone who promises to make them secure. Whether that promise of security is an increase in jobs or wages, or a return to “a simpler time”, or a crackdown on all the new frightening music/movies/television/entertainment or a return to the culture they grew up with, (the nice homogenized society which didn’t really exist, but memory has a way of dimming reality) it offers a “solution” to people looking for reassurance.
3.Prejudice. There are people in all places who distrust new or different ideas. With increasing amounts of immigration, there is an increase in visibility for the different values, customs, dress, food, entertainment etc. This also applies to the increase in technology (there are always technophobes), globalization of economy (the fast food chains/entertainment etc.) people feel their own culture/language/values are being eroded.

I also notice that voter apathy plays a large part in these elections. People feel that their vote doesn’t make a difference, or that the candidates are all the same corrupt pawns for corporate interest, or as I actually heard someone say, ”The guy I like won’t win so why bother”. This allows different groups who can mobilize large numbers of their group or interests to gain a foothold in elections. The power of democracy is in the people, but if the people can’t be bothered to shape their country, then the system won’t work.
I doubt there’s a simple solution since it’s almost impossible to make people vote if they don’t want to. Here they've been discussing internet voting to cater to those who have trouble getting to a polling place. People indicate they'd use the system, but that remains to be seen.

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by Mysteria
IMHO, one thing Le Pen has used to get votes is the security question in France. Somehow, security has risen to be quite an important issue. If there really is an inscurity issue, or if it has only been pushed up by the politicians, the medi, etc, is difficult to say. But apparently a larger group of people has grown worried for their safety, and Le Pen promises safety. I guess, some people are even so worried about their safety that they vote for Le Pen, ignoring his racist tendencies. Also, it's often easier to just blame everything on the foreigners than look why something actually does go wrong.

Now, what has really made me shake my head, are all those manifestations after the vote. If there are so many people out there that don't want Le Pen as their president, why didn't they vote then? It really makes me wonder how many of those out there on the streets did vote. It is certainly a good thing that there are manifestations, especially from those that can't even yet vote, but still, I get the impression that the French didn't really understand what voting is all about.

I sincerely hope that they'll vote now, and remember the lesson, so they go vote straight away next time, not wait until they have the desaster. What makes me think too, is that it was actually 40% of the 18-24 (or 25, can't remember) old that didn't vote! I do think that that did contribute for a not so small part to Le Pen's rise.

One thing I think would be good for democracy is to make voting compulsory, so if there is a vote, we're sure that everybody at least participated in it, not letting others vote in their place.

Now, that's my thoughts on France, but I don't really have a clue about why the other contries have got this right tendency.

(I have to admit, I'm not really very interested in politics myself , but I do know whom not to vote for, and I do vote)

People should have the right NOT to vote. Sometimes, as in the last election in France, NOT voting can send a message just as resounding as the 18 or so percentage of the electorate who voted for Le Pen; that is, a mesage of distrust and disillusionment with the available choices.

[Obsidian]

I had thought le pen only had a small base of supporters, and that there were demonstrations every day in france AGAINST him.

@ Eminem. Apathy is a choice, I suppose. Not voting is one of the dumbest things you can do. If any of you havent read the "My Life" thread I put up, I lost the election at my school because little more than half of them voted. The "winner" had less than a sixth of the vote, I had about a 7th. It's ridiculous that such a minority would come out. It's not surprising in high school, but in a major decision like electing a nations leader, everybody SHOULD vote. Not voting is as bad as voting for the candidate you don't want.

[Morlock]

Originally posted by C Elegans

France, as a country with a long social democratic tradition with leaders such as Mitterand or de Gaulle, now faces an election where one candidate is the right wing Chirac who many people have been very dissatisfied with, and the right wing extremist Le Pen and his immigrant- and women-discrimination politics. How could this happen?

Bad example with Mitterand- as he was proven to have helped the Vichi/Nazi governments in WWII.

Anyway- on Le Pen- He got about 17% of the vote. I think, with his views- discrimination againt Jews, Blacks, Arabs, Immigrants, the rest of Europe, The EU, the Euro (He wants France to go back to the Franc) with all of that, an anti immigrant patriotic protestant French male, could find many advantages, and few disadvantages in Le Pen's views- at least to be more attractive than Chirac.

[Ode to a Grasshopper]

Originally posted by EMINEM


People should have the right NOT to vote. Sometimes, as in the last election in France, NOT voting can send a message just as resounding as the 18 or so percentage of the electorate who voted for Le Pen; that is, a mesage of distrust and disillusionment with the available choices.

I have to agree with M&M (never thought I'd say that ). Australia uses the 2-party preferred system with compulsory voting and we're still consistently faced with having to choose the "lesser of two evils". In spite of the fact that it's compulsory to vote, as much as 15% of the population doesn't bother voting, they just submit blank voting slips, or in most cases write messages on their slips such as "All politicians are liars". Not voting can be a statement in itself, as MnM said earlier. I believe the problem, in Australia, lies not with whether or not it's compulsory to vote, but with the adversarial nature of the 2-party system. Theres very little point voting for any minor parties, as they have little or no chance of gaining any real power, so no matter which party you vote for your vote ends up supporting one of the major parties anyway. Both major parties are so similar in their policies that voters are left with no real alternative for government.

[Tamerlane]

I haven't read all that was posted in this thread. My time is limited so I'll probably just keep this brief.

Most of you guys who are up to date on world news, may remember some one called Pauline Hanson, who caused a lot of turmoil when she first broke onto the political scene in Australia. With her extremist views on Aborigines and banning of migrants from Asia.

Like Le Pen she represented a minority who preyed on the publics fear of foriegn ideas. Thankfully the two major parties worked together to restrict her influence but it actually did some good. It showed that the existing parties were actually out of touch with the common people. Not to the extent on agreeing on with Ms Hansons policies, but showing that the current state of politics was at such a low level.

I think the same thing will happen in France, Chirac will get into power. And work harder then before to make sure a similar incident won't happen again. Like they did here in Australia.

[Xandax]

Being able to only speak from the Danish point of view where a far right party was given a, for them, good election.
IMO these parties flourish not only because they “prey” on people’s insecurity but more so because the “established” parties overlook the mood of the population, call it pragmatic or what you like, but this is the case.
If the common man has difficulties in seeing the justification of a certain policy it does not matter much if this policy could end world hunger (so to speak).
It doesn’t matter if you have the “best view in the world” – if you can’t convince others of it.

In Denmark we have through the last 10 years had a socialistic government where all people could se was the descend of the quality of schools, quality of hospitals and healthcare in general, taxes kept rising for the common man as well as for companies, that in turn damaged these opportunities on the world market as well, through “ordinary” taxes as well as added green taxes, descend of “law and order” as a general standard most significant amongst certain fragments of our society generally as a result of failed integration of our immigrants and several others reasons.
These things often manifest themselves in “shockvotes” which is the case in most of Europe these days (Le Penn, Haider, and several other European polticians).

Most people in Denmark realises that immigrants are needed to keep the working force at an effective level, most people realise that taxes are needed to keep the schools, health care etc at a peek level etc. But most people don’t understand why bureaucracy makes it possible to pump more and more money into something and then it keeps declining, and they don’t understand that when people immigrate into a society as liberal as the Danish that they seems bend on adjusting the surrounding society into their needs instead of adapting to the society.
And they certainly don’t understand that many immigrants suddenly run around the streets protesting “Death over Israel and Jews”.

And when the established politicians just seems to sit around talking – and somebody else comes along, well it will be easy to sweep these votes up.

So as in conclusion – it is not as much a means of support to these right wing parties as a means of dissent towards the established.

And for the people that simply say – “Don’t vote then, it is just as powerfull” – it isn’t.
All the people not voting is supporting the winning party, because they don’t reduce the powerbase, there is still the same number of “seats in parlement” and they will be distributed regardless of the people whom didn’t vote – only by voting can you shift the powerbase.
Only if no-one votes this strategy would be a plausible one.

(IMO)

[Maharlika]

The way I see it...

...I think "votes for apathy" should be considered. Meaning if the total number of votes compared to the population is significantly low, then the election must be done again with remaining candidates disqualified...

...then again I'm just being ideal since there would be other implications for this type of suggestion to be considered as a possible alternative.

[Obsidian]

The problem with all democracies is that it appeals to the majority. And the majority only.
Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly in the rights of many over rule the rights of the few, but minorities often have ideas and beliefs that can benefit the whole. Compromises must be made.

[C Elegans]

The French has awoke - it's estimated that 80% of the 41 million population voted in the president election. So far it looks like Chirac will win with a large margin. I never thought I'd be happy that Chirac won an election...

[frogus]

I know very little about French politics, but I wouldn't be surprised if a cause of the large support for the Right Wing was the long history of Socialist non-entity. France is just starting to have a serious presence in Europe, and maybe people are interested in promoting their country to the top of the pecking order in time for Europe to become the super-power it is apparently going to become...

anyway, as far as..actually I remember there's another thread for discussing vote tactics...so that's all

[C Elegans]

Chirac won the election with 80% compared to 20% for Le Pen. However, this does not reflect the enormous popularity of Chirac, instead it seems like many French voted for Chirac to avoid Le Pen.

posted by Mysteria
One thing I think would be good for democracy is to make voting compulsory, so if there is a vote, we're sure that everybody at least participated in it, not letting others vote in their place.

Whereas I mostly agree with your post, I'm uncertain whether compulsory voting really helps. As Ode writes, in Australia voting is compulsory, still as amny as 15% don't vote, which is considerably more non-voters than Sweden has, and Sweden do not have compulsory voting.

posted by T'lainya

1.Playing off peoples distrust or fear of different culture. It’s easy to “demonize” immigrants as they generally have less political power. Sometimes there are language barriers, unfamiliarity with legal and social options, possible lack of citizenship (for voting purposes). All of these contribute to immigrants being easier to target in hate speeches.
2.Social assistance/economic concern. Many people perceive immigrants right or wrong as being on welfare or other subsidies. They also see them as “taking jobs away” from legal citizens. Here in the American Southwest whenever there’s a downturn in the economy, the anti immigration rhetoric heats up. People who have been laid off or lost their jobs seem to need a scapegoat. It’s easier to blame someone for getting a job they feel they deserved, than to upgrade their skills or search in a new field. (That’s a bit simplistic since it’s also not easy to go to back to school and support a family).The point is people tend to lash out when scared and are more likely to follow someone who promises to make them secure. Whether that promise of security is an increase in jobs or wages, or a return to “a simpler time”, or a crackdown on all the new frightening music/movies/television/entertainment or a return to the culture they grew up with, (the nice homogenized society which didn’t really exist, but memory has a way of dimming reality) it offers a “solution” to people looking for reassurance.
3.Prejudice. There are people in all places who distrust new or different ideas. With increasing amounts of immigration, there is an increase in visibility for the different values, customs, dress, food, entertainment etc. This also applies to the increase in technology (there are always technophobes), globalization of economy (the fast food chains/entertainment etc.) people feel their own culture/language/values are being eroded.

I would think that the points you mention here are valid in all of Western society. When comparing anti-immigrant and cultural racist parties in Europe, they all play on the strings you mention. They also share the idea that multicultural problems should be solved by forcing immigrants to change, or not letting in immigrants. The solution to change soceity, immigrant policy etc is not discussed by the European ultra right. The Swedish right-wing party (very moderately right wing in an international perspective) recently included "free immigration should be part of a free and democratic society" on their agenda. This is of course not very popular among the older members of the party since it doesn't coincide with traditional conservative politics.

posted by Obsidian
Apathy is a choice, I suppose.

I agree with you that everybody should vote, but I'm not sure if apathy is really a choice in the pure sense, in many cases I think it's a reaction. When people make choices, they are affected by lots of factors, and a choice can be made more or less difficult. For instance, in the US sometimes people say that everybody is free to choice anything, but in reality it's extremely difficult for a kid from the ghetto with abusive parents to choose to go to Harvard and study medicine. Not voting is IMO a choice than in many cases could be avoided by society making it easier to vote and tranferring the message to people that it does matter.

posted by Morlock

Bad example with Mitterand- as he was proven to have helped the Vichi/Nazi governments in WWII.

Where have you read or heard that? I have only read that some biography's claim that Mitterand was interested in fascism and admired the pro-Nazi leader Petain. During WWII, Mitterand was a soldier and became a prisoner of war. He was a clerc in the Vichy goverment, and when the Germans occupied the area, he led a restistace group. So obviously he didn't have Nazi sympathies at that time.

A lot of people supported the Nazi's before and in the beginning of the war, when people didn't realise what they really were. I have no idea what Mitterand's exact opinions were, but even if he had Nazi sympathies in his youth, it does not necessary mean he was not a social democrate president 30 years later.

[fable]

France's active socialist leftwing is often discussed, but it also has a very vocal and active nationalist far-right movement which has been going strong since the late 19th century. Nobody likes to mention it, because it was tied to a zealous pro-Nazi, anti-Semitic part of France that has been swept out of the history books--but Marshal Petain was homegrown, and the Statut des Juifs was a testimony to far-right religious and political conservativism that was inate, rather than German-influenced.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Xandax
Being able to only speak from the Danish point of view where a far right party was given a, for them, good election.
IMO these parties flourish not only because they “prey” on people’s insecurity but more so because the “established” parties overlook the mood of the population, call it pragmatic or what you like, but this is the case.

I'm personally very interested in the Danish view, since the success of the extreme right in Denmark surprised me more than in any other country.

And when the established politicians just seems to sit around talking – and somebody else comes along, well it will be easy to sweep these votes up.

So as in conclusion – it is not as much a means of support to these right wing parties as a means of dissent towards the established.

This is what is called "missnöjespolitik" in Swedish, meaning "politics of discontent". Dissatisfaction and disappointment in the current politics, mistrust and suspicion towards the establishment - it's all viewed as factors that pave the way for extremists of all kinds, making people more receptive to emotional messages like the ones T' listed.

In Sweden, we have election in September. Due to the recent success of the ultra-right in other European countries, and especially I think the increasing support in neighbouring countries Norway and Denmark, the major Swedish political parties fear a surprise result for the right wing extremists here too. There has been much discussion whether debating the extremists in public media would be for better or worse. Some politicians (for instance the present social democrat goverment) think debating them equals giving them opportunites that should be avoided. Others, like the leader of the Liberal party and some political scientists, think that the extremists become most dangerous when they are allowed to work in secret, it's better to let them present their ideas and demostrate the errors behind them.
Yesterday, the Liberal leader debated a prominent far right politician on national TV for the first time.

What do you think? Personally, I agree with the Liberal party in this question, the extremists will have more opportunites to convince people of their politics if their rhetorics are left unchallenged. I think debating them and investigating their claims in public is the best way of revealing desinformation.

@Fable: France has a stong nationalistic movement, and this unfortunately includes right wing extremists. Many Europeans view France as one of Europe's firmest stronghold for conservative, discriminating nationalism.

[Quark]

Hearing right-wing ideas about France seems very strange to me

Seeing France's policies, I've always believed they were more socialist than anything else. I still remember one law they passed a few years ago (read about it in Time). They dropped the maximum work hours per week, while forcing companies to pay the same wages.

Alright, sounds fine if you think your people are working too hard. Problem is, that law was supposed to reduce unemployement.

I've never understood how France strays from reason sometimes. Perhaps this Le Pen incident isn't only security-driven, but also a backlash against the left-wing mentality dominant in France.

Personally I'd like to see a moderate win

[C Elegans]

@Quark: Who understands France

As I see it, the French has both a very strong socialistic tradition and a strong right-wing, but they are mostly different groups. The variability between different groups of people is much larger in France than it is in Scandinavia, for instance. In the southern parts of France, nationalism and hostility towards immigrants have generally been much stronger than in the north parts. However, I used to spend a lot of time in France when I was younger, and my impression was that also the socialists in France are relatively nationalistic, whereas in Scandinavia, anti-immigration politics and nationalism havetraditionally been connected to the right wing.

[Xandax]

Originally posted by C Elegans

<snip>
There has been much discussion whether debating the extremists in public media would be for better or worse. Some politicians (for instance the present social democrat goverment) think debating them equals giving them opportunites that should be avoided. Others, like the leader of the Liberal party and some political scientists, think that the extremists become most dangerous when they are allowed to work in secret, it's better to let them present their ideas and demostrate the errors behind them.
Yesterday, the Liberal leader debated a prominent far right politician on national TV for the first time.

What do you think? Personally, I agree with the Liberal party in this question, the extremists will have more opportunites to convince people of their politics if their rhetorics are left unchallenged. I think debating them and investigating their claims in public is the best way of revealing desinformation.
<snip>

Well this is a double edge sword, but I would say that debate is needed to find out why these parties gain so much support.
You can't "ignore" them cause by doing so you ignore 15% (or the amount that voted for them) of the population and that would cause more dissent against the established "clean-cut" parties.
But just because a far right party's view differs dosent' mean that their information isn't real and just as relevant as the other parties, especially to the people voting for them, and if ignored support would only grow for them.