The French socialists have chosen to widely open the procedure for nominating their candidate for the presidential election. The primaries of October 9 and 16 constitute in this respect a true democratic innovation. However, the political scientist Rémi Lefebvre is concerned, in a recently published little book, about a possible erasure of the party in favor of the polls.
The excellent little book (176 pages) by Rémi Lefebvre is extremely topical and can be read in one go. Its qualities nevertheless make it more than a seasonal read whose main interest lies in putting the long-awaited socialist primaries into historical perspective. The author questions the enthusiasm of French socialists – and beyond in the countries and parties which have been experimenting with them for several years – for a nomination procedure which takes away from the party and its activists one of their most important prerogatives, the nomination of the candidate for the presidential election. By placing the terms of this fall’s competition in their context (cultural, political, strategic, organizational), the author demonstrates the contingency of a reform presented as self-evident, in phase with social and democratic demand.
A response to the internal crisis of the Socialist Party
Chapter 1 reviews the history of the nomination of the socialist candidate between 1965 and 2007 and highlights the emergence, since the 1990s, of a legitimacy of opinion which contrasts with partisan culture and denotes the progressive acceptance of logic of presidentialization by the party. Even if the idea of a primary had been adopted in the statutes in 1978, Michel Rocard preferred to respect the logic of the organization and support François Mitterrand rather than incur the risk of defeat. It was only when the currents had lost their intellectual and ideological force, around ten years later, that they essentially became stables of pretenders. Conversely, the influence of opinion has played an increasingly preponderant role. European parties are going through a crisis of confidence which leads them to seek a new source of legitimacy in opening their decision-making processes to their members. In this, socialists are far from unique. In 1995 and 2006, the “ selectorate » was gradually expanded: from elites to members, first of all, then to an even broader membership base, by recruiting several thousand members thanks to an attractive rate in 2006. This year also marked a historic turning point since, for the first time, poll popularity imposed itself against the logic of the apparatus and that the “ virginity » relative of Ségolène Royal in terms of partisan responsibility allowed her to claim her modernity and her openness, against the archaism of “ elephants » and currents. Furthermore, the party then preferred to look for a providential woman (as in 1995 with Jacques Delors and in the first months of 2011 with Dominique Strauss-Kahn) rather than confront its relative sclerosis. In a few months, however, the membership shrank, revealing the inability, or even the refusal, to integrate members at 20 euros, likely to disrupt internal balances.
Secondly, the book explores the thesis of the importation of models by political entrepreneurs, whose think tank Terra Nova, and by media pressure pushing the party into a headlong rush to “ modernization “. Structural logics (the sociological closure of the organization, its organizational transformation, the narrowness of the militant base and the failures of attempts at modernization) were combined with a situational logic linked to the failure in the 2007 presidential election, and the interpretation of this defeat in terms of an organizational crisis. The controversial election of Martine Aubry as party leader at the Reims congress in 2008 contributed to delegitimizing internal procedures. The debate on the primary was therefore structured by an opposition between “ young wolves » (some devoid of the support of a current) and old activists anchored in history and networks. It was also marked by the commitment of media close to the party. Once the principle was adopted, the practice remained to be defined: the rule does not play a role, and decisions on the process were taken under the watchful eye of the media. They stirred up, with undisguised greed, the competitive games. Beyond the lack of enthusiasm among activists to adopt the reform (despite positive results, the participation rate in the two referendums was ultimately disappointing), we will note the preeminence of tactical choices, including that of the calendar and the rules of competition . However, these practical choices contribute to strongly limiting the deliberative and democratic scope of the reform. Instead of long and argued primaries, as its designers wanted, the process adopted is short and strictly regulated: the work of ideological renewal takes second place.
An erasure of the party in favor of the polls ?
Rémi Lefebvre then explores the implications of this procedural innovation on partisan boundaries. Indeed, even if the internal power relations of the organization continue to govern the candidacy offer, the chosen system limits the weight of the party and increases that of the polls. Media coverage affects the dynamics of the partisan game. It promotes personalization and individual play. While the primaries were supposed to calm the conflicts, they were exacerbated by the media staging of successive matches. The currents are weakened, but the pluralist culture remains and legitimizes the expression of differences: we are thus witnessing a relaxation of partisan discipline and party spirit, which the weakness of leadership cannot stop. Surprisingly, the socialists are the first architects of the discrediting of the party, transformed into a B series soap opera by their greed to be seen personally and the constant concern of journalists to count as a blow each assertion of difference and nuance. It is also fascinating to discover the extent to which communication services demonstrate amateurism: press services are content with the logistical organization of relations with journalists ; the partisan elites themselves deliver the juicy news, organizing the leaks to the point that telephone jammers have to be installed in Solferino. As a result, we no longer distinguish between backstage and front stage. Internal debates no longer have any meaning, because what matters is what happens in the media ; they become, therefore, empty places. The important thing is the popularity index of each candidate.
It is difficult not to compare the weakening of discipline and partisan loyalty in favor of personal strategies with the spectacular takeover of his party by Tony Blair in 1994. If New Labor ended up being criticized for control obsessive about its image (and can be considered partially responsible for the cynicism of British journalists, eager to find the chink in the media armor), taking control of communication was a crucial step in the successful conquest of power. In the Socialist Party, it is not the excessive centralization of all communication that is a source of distrust and unease, but quite the opposite. There are no more closed doors or secrets, the strategies are above all personal. Finally, the primaries will not involve voters in the selection any more, explains Lefebvre, because this is strictly managed by the elites and above all shaped by polls.
The final chapter considers “ the erasure of the party “, that is to say the militant and ideological decline of an organization within which the logic of personal differentiation now devalues militant resources. Since 1993, criticism relating to the excessive professionalization of executives, the excessive weight of elected officials, and the impoverishment of the activist base, have ultimately not led to satisfactory reforms: local elected officials have encouraged Malthusian practices in matters of of membership, the elites retaining control of the primaries (from the calendar, to the practical arrangements and to the candidates themselves), and the sociological base of the party remained very narrow. The socialists, regrets Lefebvre, convinced themselves that the party was outdated and that we could do without it, bypassing it to appeal directly to the logic of opinion as a source of legitimacy. According to the author, the primaries also correspond to the acceptance, within the party, of a radically different vision of political commitment from that which had prevailed until then. Far from the activist devoted to the collective, the modes of political engagement considered normal are now distanced, pragmatic and punctual. This new model would also be inspired by the social sciences, which thus serve to justify the inability to broaden the base or the abandonment of the vocation to defend popular categories, which have become politically minorities and therefore negligible, although they are still socially in the majority. Finally, the primaries call into question the programmatic and ideological function of the party, because they disconnect the choice of the candidate from that of the project.
Densely written, supplemented with notes taken on the spot and useful boxes, Rémi Lefebvre’s book convincingly dismantles the myth of the democratic legitimacy of primaries and that of “ modernization » of the party. Despite the rhetoric, the logic of devices does not disappear and surveys become key elements in an environment that favors personalization and personal conflicts. Far from helping to resolve the crisis of activism and commitment, this procedure could prove to be another step in the weakening of the partisan organization and its social anchoring. Finally, Lefebvre invites us to reflect on the unexpected effects of the analyzes proposed by political scientists who, by diagnosing the emergence of forms of political engagement “ à la carte », contribute to making them happen and convince the parties to respond to (or even anticipate) these expectations.
The work, written before the primaries themselves, may seem excessively pessimistic a posteriori. The socialists in fact obtained part of what they were looking for, that is to say an audience and media focus on their candidates. The first two debates allowed the exhibition and discussion of the socialist project ; the discussions showed the existence of militant complicity at the same time as divergences, and underlined the possibility of a pluralistic but courteous debate ; while respecting a certain partisan discipline, the candidates asserted themselves as personalities while laying the groundwork for the future presidential campaign, regardless of the candidate. If the personalization linked to the undue influence of polls is confirmed, on the other hand the inability of the party to mobilize the left-wing electorate that Lefebvre fears is not yet proven. Nevertheless, the author clearly poses the question of the future of the party: what is the point of joining if you do not want to make a career ?