Registered in the communist tradition skechers, I always do not agree with Jean-Luc Mélenchon in his manner of making live the republican tradition. I find that it confuses a little too the commun run and resembling it, the public space and the administrative absolute power of the State. I consider that it underestimates, in the name of the dignity of the political commitment, the need for the radical renewal of the forms of his organization. Moreover, I fear all that, in the name of the harmful use of the experts, can end up indicating with vindication the “elites in general”. In short, I do not like “That they all from go away!”.
Popular dynamic
But is this the true reason in the great anti-Mélenchon concert I never heard it vituperate the elected officials, the intellectuals, the “Parisian ones”, the solidarity of the tax or the immigrants. On the other hand, I intend it to say that it is necessary to finish some with the social democrat backings. I intend it to affirm that one needs a new age of the public services, food-together, democracy. That it is necessary, that point to reach, put in the middle of very undertaken the popular initiative. And that supposes a new political clout hair, with the left of the left.
In much of political families, it did not fail demagogues who flatter the people in word, to maintain it in practice in its antique subjection. Especially on the right, one used and uses still readily of the limits of the representative democracy to turn the popular resentment against the democracy very short.
If it were the case, the people would be to the absent subscribers. However, without popular dynamic, the left with the capacity would go once more to the failure. And the demagogues of right-hand side would have, like elsewhere in Europe, a boulevard in front of them. In the immediate future, that the left of the left thus does not waste any chance by advance, while drawing on all that moves.
The form of its speech, pugnacious to the extreme, fact discusses. But it has the merit to state the need for rupture and it can make it hear in public political space. Its style runs up against sometimes sides of the cultural tradition of the working combat, trade unionist or Communist: Jean-Luc Mélenchon would gain to hold account of it. But to focus against him the unjust criticism of a populism in addition improbable, one is likely to precipitate the marginalisation of the left of the left. We live a paradox indeed: the social movement can not find very well any expression political adequate in the two years to come and 2012 could be well limited to the confrontation of an aggressive right-hand side and a “centrized” left.
There is too much facility in the consensus which is installed on the universal and undifferentiated use term. Historically, France knew cesarism, Bonapartism, orleanism, Fascism, neoliberalism, socialism salwar, anarchism, écologisme or Communism. One would be well in sorrow there to find “a” populism or “” populisms.
Under the terms of what, that the capacities are of left or right-hand side, the public services are reduced, collective protections disappear and the inequalities grow hollow. Such are the causes of the pit which separates the people from the institutions. Without a rupture with them, competences are locked up in a bubble, the expertise is not useful more that to justify the existing disorder, the policy loses its direction and the public spirit is weakened.
The abstention becomes in France a phenomenon of mass. The French consider that the politicians are not with the listening of their concerns. Persons in charge of the Republic practise the discrimination of State, against the immigrants, the “sensitive” Roms or districts. However here that, if one is indignant, it should be against “the populisms”.
That recalls us that it is not enough to flatter the people to be popular, of “speaking” people “to be” people. Here nearly thirty years that governments lead policies which accelerate the slope economically liberal or put up with it. Here more than thirty years that real competences and undeniable good wills are mobilized to explain why these choices are inexorable constraints.