25th April 2022
For some the victory of Emmanuel Macron in France is not enough.
The victory over his illiberal opponent was not sufficiently crushing.
He is not an especially liberal politician himself.
And his illiberal opponents may do well in elections to come.
But.
An implicit assumption of those holding such views is perhaps that a ‘once-and-for-all’ blow could somehow be struck, knocking out the illiberals.
Unfortunately, like the poor, the illiberals will always be there.
The horrors of mid-twentieth century authoritarianism was not the only manifestation of illiberalism.
Nazism and Fascism were not the classic form of such illiberalism, but how it formed in certain places at certain times.
The price of liberalism, like that of liberty, is eternal vigilance.
And so: when there are wins, like there was in France – and Slovenia – yesterday, there is nothing wrong with cherishing and celebrating such victories.
But such elations and rejoicing are necessarily short-lived, for pretty soon liberalism is going to have to politically defend itself all over again.
And again, and again.
For if liberals – and progressives – become complacent, and think that history has ended with the right side winning, then you next get resurgent illiberalism – as in the United States and elsewhere.
The contest of liberalism and illiberalism is a struggle without end.
So after the claps and cheers, we return to the position of brace, brace, and we do what we can to avoid the crashes to come.
**
Thank you for reading – and please support this blog so that it can carry on.
These free-to-read law and policy posts every week day take time and opportunity cost to put together, as do the comments to moderate.
So for more posts like this – both for the benefit of you and for the benefit of others – please do support through the Paypal box above, or become a Patreon subscriber.
***
Comments Policy
This blog enjoys a high standard of comments, many of which are better and more interesting than the posts.
Comments are welcome, but they are pre-moderated and comments will not be published if irksome.
For more on this blog’s Comments Policy see this page.
The rise of the illiberal far right has many causes, but I would put particular blame on Bill Clinton and Tony Blair and the ‘third way.’ That was simply neo-liberalism lite. It was particularly so in the US where the social safety net was also ‘lite’ and which virtually nothing was done about globalization etc. (Compare this with Canada and you see a startling real-life experiment. I’ve mentioned Canadian wine as a perfect case (!) to explore.) In Europe where social democrats and socialists became Blair clones, the far right found a perfect entrance. And not just with racism and nationalism but with, in many cases a false, concern for the social safety net. Le Pen made that a major part of her campaign.
The solution is simple a revitalized left, a green movement, and a conservative movement based more in Burke than Thatcher.
Perhaps even more worrying is how a far-right wannabe-fascist like LePen can genuinely be such an open fan of a far-left communist like Putin.
At least, until you realise that “far left” and “far right” are (to borrow the term) “opposites”… and that both are in fact code for “autocratic dictator”.
In that sense, perhaps our biggest concern isn’t necessarily whether a given politician describes themselves as left-of-centre or right-of-centre, because the thing that matters most is “distance from the centre”, in which the centre represents recognition of accepted democratic norms, such as free and fair elections, term limits, manifesto politics and the like.
The problem isn’t necessarily the -ism so much as the extreme to which it is implemented.
The problem very much is the -ism, and the right of centre neoliberalism that’s been practiced, particularly in the UK and the US, since the Thatcher/Reagan days. It’s led to huge inequality, stagnating or declining standards of living, austerity that’s erdoded welfare and public services for the less well off and a rapidly disappearing sense of community, notwithstanding Cameron’s attempt to get services on the cheap. It’s in this environment that people look for scapegoats (the EU, immigrants) and charlatans like Farage and Johnson flourish.
The left has been frightened away from the economic arguments by a combination of weak leadership and a press run by billionaires with vested interests, resorting instead to dead-end (in electoral terms) identity politics.
Are we going to be blessed with a more liberal society any time soon? I’m not holding my breath
Sorry, but on what planet is Putin a “far left Communist”?
The guy is head of a gangster state, he has more in common with Don Corleone than Lenin and Russia, as it is currently constituted, is what you get when you allow a small group of ruthless oligarchs steal the countries assets and hoard all it’s wealth for themselves, paying tribute to Putin as required. Russia hasn’t been a Communist country for a very long time: –
https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2022/03/22/1087654279/how-shock-therapy-created-russian-oligarchs-and-paved-the-path-for-putin?t=1650961120549
And Ed is correct, it was around the time when “Centrists” Blair and Clinton were in power that Russia took this turn for the worse and I seem to recall Blair was a big fan of Putin himself back in the day.
Sorry, I think my previous post was plagued by auto-correct.
I meant to use the term “oppo-sames”, but it was auto-corrected to “opposites”.
Thanks, Apple…
A worrying aspect of yesterday’s election is that there appears to be no succession plan. He broke the system 5 years ago but now he’s stuck with a job he no longer appears to want. My OH persuaded a pair of intending abstainers to vote for Macron on our behalf (not yet citizens) but today feels like treading water rather than moving on.
Just for a start, take an illiberal attitude to voting – make it compulsory, with a fine if you don’t.
In Belgium after being unable to vote during two occupations, the government decided that, to repay the debt of those who fought and died, the rest of the population should exercise their right.
There may well be other countries I only have experience of Belgium.
Mandatory voting also exists in Australia. I find the arguments for it compelling; amongst which: it is a citizen’s duty; a voter can still “spoil” the ballot thus indicating “none of the above”; and it allows small parties which have no big private donors to finance them, to be available to the voter at the ballot box.
By all means mandate voting… perhaps with a small fine for a first offence that escalates for repeats.
But if you really want to encourage more people to vote, make it easier to do so. Here are just two examples of how that might be possible.
1. Smartphone/Web Voting app… Many citizens have a “Government ID” of some kind (at least in the UK this is the case if, for example, you are required to complete a tax return each year and prefer to file on line). So put up an on-line site and let people vote on line. Or create a mobile app and let them vote on line.
2. Use ATM Machines… The ATM network for banks transactions literally billions on a daily basis, so if it’s good enough for that, it’s good enough for registering voters. Allow citizens to link their “voter ID” to a debit card and then all they need to do to vote is turn up at an ATM machine and do so.
Either solution would make it easier to vote, remove the excuse of not being able to and potentially would significantly increase voter participation.
And if you’re thinking, “Hmm… that actually sounds like a reasonable set of suggestions. I wonder why we don’t do that already?” The answer is simple. Making voting this easy would lead to citizens asking (demanding) to be consulted more often on a much wider range of issues. Today a referendum could cost millions to run… Bake it in to everyday life and the only real expense is tabulating the results. Not really hard.
But the “problem” is that this would democratise government to a degree that would make elected representatives exceedingly nervous, because they would realise that it would not take us long to figure out that, actually, we don’t need them in their hundreds, on their salaries and their second homes and their expense accounts and their fact-finding missions.
But this really isn’t hard.
That risks exclusion of a different kind, as many households (I’ve seen the figure of 2 million) have no internet access. Over 10% – mainly elderly – people don’t have a smartphone.
It maybe isn’t that easy. As far as I am aware there is still no solid way of verifying and checking online votes if needed compared to the literal paper trail we have at the moment. Blockchains have been looked at but nothing has appeared so far.
And don’t forget that “on the internet no one knows you’re a dog”…. not to mention hacking ….
Whilst I support the idea of making voting easier, even whilst being unsure that the current difficulty is the cause of low turnout, electronic/digital voting is something that must be approached with extreme caution.
Personally, I’d be very doubtful that it would be possible to implement secure and anonymous voting via smartphones (or even ATMs) – especially in a way that the population in general can understand. I’m sure there will be technical solutions that would enable cheaper/remote voting, though I also think that the largest issues will be trust in the system.
It’s very hard to cheat in a paper-and-people-counting election, but perhaps more importantly it’s hard to imagine someone cheating in a way that would meaningfully alter the outcome.
How about doing the opposite and telling citizens it is a privilege to vote and it is up to them to use it. Apart from making sure that there is sufficient poll access and voting time (14-18 hours would seem more than enough and a holiday/paid 2-3 hours to vote), nothing else is required. Dont make absentee votes easy or allow early voting. Grown ups can all make their minds up on the day and go in person unless they have good excuses. If participation is low then look to the politicians.
I don’t understand your problem with absentee and early voting or what additional value there is in voting in person. We should make it easier to vote, not harder. Requiring an excuse not to go to a polling station adds another barrier preventing people voting. Surely the object is getting more people to vote?
I dont understand why we have to make voting “easier”. How hard is it to stop off at a polling station near your home? An election is set for a specific day. How hard is it to plan weeks ahead to vote on that day? Voting is simply and also a privilege. Easy access is pretty much universal. We dont need to go to extremes to get those who dont feel like making the effort to vote.
On the flip side remote voting is more open to fraud and manipulation and early voting destroys the point of minimum campaign times which is to provide parties the opportunity to make their case, to do well and to mess up. You dont get more voting by dumbing down the process. You get votes by having politicians who connect.
You want more people to participate in voting. Either you make voting compulsory or you make voting easier. There are many reasons why people can’t attend a polling station and they can crop up at short notice. You might have a holiday booked, or be working abroad on business. You might be in the forces and posted away from home. You could be ill or in hospital. Students can only register in one place (home or uni) and whether the election is in term time or not will determine if they can vote in person. Then there are the elderly and disabled who need help to vote in person and it may be impossible for them.
As for fraud, voter fraud is almost non existent in the UK. Postal votes can be exploited by unscrupulous community leaders but that can be combatted by public information campaigns. Otherwise postal voting is secure. Early voting is essential for a postal vote since same day delivery isn’t a viable solution. If you’ve already made your mind up the election campaign won’t sway you. If you haven’t you can delay posting your vote until the last few days.
As for the direct connection, for an MP a postal vote is just as welcome as an in person one. Most people don’t get to directly connect with their MPs during elections, but if they come canvassing during a campaign you’ll get a connection whether you vote in person or by post.
Democracy is not about forcing or ensuring people vote. It is about making that vote available to everyone at the same time. Voting is a voluntary act. Your vote is a privilege and a right. if you dont make the effort to vote that’s your problem. It also reflects on politicians who are unable to connect.
Absentee postal ballots exist for all of the examples you cite (I think Armed Forces arrange balloting as they do in US forces). The only effort required is to fill in the form. You get a minimum of 6 weeks notice of elections: even students can manage to sort out where they want to vote. If you cant be bothered the clearly your vote doesn’t matter to you: democracy is not about begging you to vote.
That’s quite different from letting everyone vote absentee and vote early just for convenience. Everyone except real absentees should vote on the same day: that gives all parties the full campaign to make their case. Going to a polling station is simple (provisions are made for seniors). Treat people as adults who can manage the simple task of voting like everyone else. If they dont want to then they dont value their vote. And the US experience is that allowing early and absentee voting encourages vote harvesting by both sides.
PS absentee postal ballots have a cut off date
A vote is a vote however it is cast. I don’t feel especially connected to the process by voting in person. If postal voting encourages more people to vote then that’s a good outcome in my view.
If someone cant be bothered to vote in person I dont think that vote is worth much. You have to want to exercise and defend your rights. If reasonable efforts have been made for you to be able to rake the short walk/bus to a polling station and you decide not to, it’s no loss.
All votes are equal. The more people who participate in an election the better. Making something more accessible does not make it less worthwhile.
You write as if the polling system is difficult but it is highly accessible and simple. In which case the problem is not the system but the voter. No amount of bending over backwards will make that voter a motivated or interested voter. Part of the right to vote is the right not to vote. If people dont want to vote in pretty much all of Europe (and the US) then that is down to them and to the politicians who have failed to engage them. We cant force people to care about the election and shouldn’t insist they vote if they dont.
Where did I say we should force people to vote? We should encourage them to do so.
Someone in this thread eulogized mandatory voting a la NZ. I may have mistaken that comment for yours.
We already encourage people to vote and make it easy. What more is needed unless you really believe that it is hard which frankly is to credible?
“We already encourage people to vote and make it easy.”
So we do.
“What more is needed unless you really believe that it is hard which frankly is to credible?”
Nothing, you’re the one saying postal votes should be restricted. I’m happy with things as they are.
Oh come on. You made a long argument for postal votes to be available to anyone without cause, for online voting and more. I have said all along that what is currently in place is sufficient and you have insisted more is necessary.
In your original comment you said:
“Dont make absentee votes easy or allow early voting. Grown ups can all make their minds up on the day and go in person unless they have good excuses. If participation is low then look to the politicians.”
All I originally said was I didn’t understand your problem with absentee or early voting. I didn’t mention online voting then or since.
In your latest reply you said:
“I have said all along that what is currently in place is sufficient and you have insisted more is necessary.”
With respect, please read the comment I quoted above. You clearly wanted absentee voting to be restricted and subsequently argued that only necessary postal voting was justified.
I’m not arguing for postal voting to be extended because postal votes can already be requested by anyone for any reason. The application form explicitly states that. You have been arguing they should only be used when people have a good excuse not to attend the polling station.
These kinds of measures have been thoroughly considered over very many years. One of the problems that must be solved for voting is the secrecy of the vote. Without secrecy a voter may be intimidated into voting a certain way by someone else. Or they may willingly sell their vote. Secrecy prevents both of these. Lots of remote voting – whether by smartphone, ATM, or merely by post – provides a corrupting influence. A small amount is harmless, but has little effect anyway.
Safe and effective voting really is hard.
Well, many French electors felt like they were required to choose between plague or cholera, but it is good that we don’t have an authoritarian populist in power in France (or in Slovenia). Also the vote for the AfD went down in Germany last year.
But Putin is still in power in Russia. Xi in China. Modi in India. Bolsonaro in Brazil (but there will be an election this year). Erdogan in Turkey. Duda in Poland. Orban was recently reelected in Hungary with more votes and more seats.
Let’s see how the “National Rally” do in the French parliamentary elections this June, and the results of the Brazilian elections in October and the US midterms in November. It could still be President Trump taking office again in 2025. God help us all.
The French parliamentarians will be telling.
“and we do what we can to avoid the crashes to come.”
Which is what exactly?
It’s easy to characterize the election as liberal vs nationalist/extreme right. The reality is more one of outs and ins like the Brexit vote. Melenchon came close to being the run-off candidate, unthinkable 7 years ago given his extreme left positions. Voters seem to have decided to vote against what the ‘ins” hold sacred or simply not to vote. Where he and Le Pen agreed was in socio-economic palliatives for people who feel ignored and scorned and who are suffering from inflation.
It doesn’t matter to them that inflation comes from the Pandemic and Ukraine. It seems to be the last straw that has woken them up to what most of us have known for ages: France is very expensive for the average worker (an expresso version of the Economist’s BigMac price index is that you pay a third to a half for a coffee shot just across the border in Spain and Italy to what you pay in France). Ironically Macron made so much progress on the bugbear of the past 20 years, unemployment, that no one cared about it anymore of was willing to give him credit. Nor is anyone willing to face the fact that the world has moved on and France cant support the nostalgic visions the French have of their exceptional life and place.
The depressing part of the victory of “liberalism” is that the centre has collapsed in French politics and it is hard to see the PS or the LR making the second round. Five years is not very long to rebuild and they will face a Macron candidate taking votes as well.
So yes, celebrate but focus on reconnecting with 50%+ of the electorate. That btw is the message for the British centre and for the US moderates.
A somewhat humbled Macron – apparently displayed in his ‘victory’ speech yesterday evening in which he recognised the divisions in French society, particularly those who felt alienated and left behind – may help make him less abrasive and more prepared to listen rather than lecture. One can but hope. It is a massive task and no French President in the last 30 years has succeeded in bringing about the necessary reforms, let alone in an economy about to hit very adverse conditions. He is, nevertheless, head and shoulders above our sorry excuse of a PM. As is the French system. Even with the spoilt ballots and abstainers, he was elected by a much bigger percentage than our outdated FPTP system which enables a party with thirty something per cent of the vote to wield a “do whatever we want” 80 seat majority.
Complete agreement from me. FPTP is outdated and unfair on many voters.
If Macron wants to be remembered for pulling France back from the brink of Fascism/authoritarianism, the job starts now. He cannot claim he has already done it merely by keeping Le Pen out of office on this occasion. A possible first step might be to act on the assumption that ignorance played a large part in bringing her to the fore, and to plough massive resources into state education. How much that can achieve in five years I wouldn’t know, but if it succeeds in refashioning attitudes to truth and knowledge profoundly enough, especially knowledge of history, so that it would be as near as dammit unthinkable for any would-be successor to veer off that path, then liberal democracy may survive and even flourish.
The constitution of the Fifth Republic was conceived by Charles de Gaulle in 1958 when he was asked to come out of retirement when the country was in a political impasse.
The poor together with left and right wing hotheads will always be with us . The General adopted a two round system to both avoid extremes and produce a workable Presidency.
His system has largely worked .
There is a French adage that you vote with your heart in the first round and your head in the second and perhaps there is some truth in this.
Your description of Macron as a politician is an intriguing one. True he has assumed political office but his background is in finance and not politics.
How he started working in Matignon for Francois Hollande as an « advisor » remains a mystery.
At the end of his two year fixed term contract he had one foot out of the door. Hollande realised he could not function without him however and called him back and made him a Minister much to the annoyance of many Socialist Deputies.
Macron is also of extremely high intellectual ability . His meteoric rise from nowhere does lead to jealousies and resentments. True he can appear aloof and arrogant but Le Pen’s argument that people should vote for her because of this was not convincing.
I recall reading some research a while back that found that the vote for the far right increased in Belgium when they introduced compulsory voting, and I thought that they had subsequently abandoned it – albeit this was quite a few years ago now. There is certainly no reason to assume that making voting compulsory helps the cause of liberalism, and there may be pragmatic as well as principled reasons for believing that it is in fact antithetical to it.
With regard to the French Presidential Election, I have been told by French voters many times that, on the first round you vote for the person you would like to win, and on the second round you vote for the person you don’t want to win… i.e. it’s tactical voting..
As an example of the danger of assuming that highly dangerous politics cannot re-emerge, some years before the fall of the Berlin Wall Robert Jackson, sometime fellow of All Souls and at the time rising Conservative (he later defected to Labour) wrote a pamphlet in which he described (Stalinist) Marxism and Fascism as exotic blooms of the 1930s and added that fascism was no longer a threat. Those of us who knew Robert’s capacity for being invariably wrong were instantly put on guard that fascism would revive. Alas too few understood the value of listening to RobertJackson…
The good thing about the French voting system is that it gives the French public opportunity to give an unpopular candidate (yet still more popular than the main alternative) a kicking in the first round followed by a vote for the least worst candidate in the second round. In the UK we only get one shot at it, so protest votes against a Prime Minister can lead to unforeseen consequences such as Leave winning the EU referendum.
We will never get rid of illiberalism. A significant minority of any population is illiberal by nature. The problem in the UK is that our voting system means such a minority can form a majority government. In 2019 the minority illiberal vote was bolstered by those who wanted Brexit to be done.
I don’t advocate the French voting system for the UK, but I do advocate PR instead of FPTP. That would be a good protection against illiberal government here. No need for tactical or protest votes, just vote for your preferred party. It would lead to more coalition politics but that would put a brake on extremism in a country like the UK which is culturally liberal and tolerant. Of course it would also mean significant representation for parties like UKIP in parliament, but that leads to exposure of such parties to far greater scrutiny and eventually their demise. Their behaviour in the EU Parliament only left them looking ridiculous and powerless.
The French system produces instability, dissatisfaction and alienation. It allows people to pander to whims in the first round only to see a president elected on a plurality given that many of the second round votes are hold-your-nose votes. Unsurprisingly voters then feel that the winner is not their candidate and is not accountable. That splinters the vote even more next time round which in turn increases the negative second round voting and creates more alienation.
The problem with PR is that it discourages parties from becoming broadband. In two round systems like France this becomes extreme. France suffers further from the awkward mix of presidential and parliamentary systems which has also failed spectacularly in countries like Peru. Worse PR if anything seems to exacerbate extremism and Brexit style voting to poke the establishment in the eye.
I was being somewhat tongue in cheek saying the French got a chance to give the ruling party a kicking without actually kicking them out but there is an element of truth to it. Only one candidate can win the Presidency so the second round means many must vote for a candidate who wasn’t their first choice. You call that a hold your nose vote, but at least they get to vote in favour of one most in line with their political view. Everyone’s vote counts, even if their favourite didn’t win because they were eliminated in the first round.
You’ll have to come up with some evidence to support your claim that PR “seems to exacerbate extremism and Brexit style voting”. Brexit style voting only applies in a two horse race, such as a referendum. In a General Election there are many parties and so which do you vote for in protest? It’s unlikely everyone would vote the same way and produce a distorted result. Of course there’s a chance that an extreme party might hold the balance of power as often happens in Israel. On the other hand you have Germany, which elects stable and widely supported coalitions.
FPTP mostly results in a majority elected by a minority. That is totally undemocratic. Yes it produces strong governments but they tend to be as unpopular as they are strong. The current government is busy voting through quite draconian measures on the right to protest and on nationality and immigration and there’s nothing the opposition, which represents more of the popular vote, can do about amending them, let alone defeating them. Another issue is that people feel their vote doesn’t count. If you live in a safe seat the party that represents you rarely changes. My vote has never counted towards the election result in my lifetime as I’ve never lived in a marginal seat. With PR everyone’s vote counts towards the result in Parliament. No need for tactical voting or protest votes.
Many oppose PR because they think it has to be a party list system, but that isn’t the case. My preference is for STV, but the systems in use in Scotland and Wales would be perfectly acceptable.
The French election was exactly the opposite of what you say. It was largely people voting for candidates they didnt like but preferred to the the alternative. That was repeated over and over again in interviews. It also produced the illogical abstaining and spoiling even where voters knew they didnt want one of the two to win. This was a protest at the awful choice they were presented. There was a good element of that in Macron 1 and Chirac 2. France is a classic case of Brexit style voting. The same is happening in Spain in regional elections which are boosting Vox.
It is not unique to PR (US elections for example) but it does seem to be more usual. The UK is often sited for PR but the strong regional block voting makes it deceptive. SNP chose not to participate in government which means that inevitably its voters are not represented. PC and most of the Ulster seats do the same. But those are voter choices to pick parties that will not participate (with one brief DUP disastrous exception).
As I said I wasn’t promoting the French system, just saying it gives voters the opportunity to kick an unpopular candidate in the safe knowledge that the final vote will be in favour of the least unpopular candidate. Your idea of “Brexit voting” is clearly different to my understanding of it. Let’s agree to disagree.
The SNP certainly participate at Westminster and provide a strong and effective voice for their supporters. PR should encourage them to work in coalition as it would give them even more influence, albeit in a government they want no long term part of. That Irish Nationalist MPs don’t sit in the Commons is a shame and disenfranchises their supporters but the reason why are well known. These are not arguments against PR.
FPTP has nothing to commend it and for all its faults PR is vastly superior. It made sense in the two party past but no longer. Your reference to nationalist block voting is not the point. Tribal politics exists under any system. PR gives voters the chance to vote for their preference knowing that preference will be represented in Parliament in proportion to the public vote. If they misuse that opportunity to vote against another party that’s their mistake. It’s hard to vote against one party when there are at least four available on the ballot.
We should have 13 Green MPs according to the public vote, we have one. The LibDems should have 75 MPs, not 13. These are significant minorities whose views are not properly represented.
Every election I have to try and work out which candidate will give my sitting Tory MP the best fight. I’m not alone in thinking tactical voting should not be necessary and that every voter should have a vote that counts. I also think that coalition government is a good counter to extremism by empowering the centre. It doesn’t always work (the LibDem influence in 2010 did not ameliorate Conservative austerity plans and enabled the dramatic student fee increases) but at least it properly reflects public opinion in a way FPTP can never do.
Brexit voting is a simple concept. You vote for the candidate that the establishment dislikes. For Brexit it was Brexit even though voters were voting against their employers. For France it was voting for Le Pen because she pissed off the Parisian elite ( as seen by the regional outs). It wasn’t just voting the first round. Second round was low vote, serious abstentions and a 30% up in absolute votes for Le Pen.
SNP has been a complete wasted vote for Scots. SNP postures on a few issues but otherwise plays zero role in deciding how Britain is governed. It is just as bad as Sin Fein not turning up. If SNP had any sense of a national policy it could coalition with parties to represent the interest of Scots. In Scotland’s regional elections PR has made no difference. SNP would have won either way.
I know what Brexit voting is. I don’t agree with your interpretation of it though.
In Scotland it may have been true that the SNP would have won elections without PR, though they beeded a coalition to stay in power at the last election, but it isn’t an argument against it. No UK party in my lifetime has won more than 50% of the vote, yet usually the largest party wins a working majority. PR would correct that undemocratic representation.
SNP deliberately abstains from UK government. It thereby deprives its voters of proper representation. Once could argue it is a form of spoiled ballot.
Macron won with less than 50% of the vote: over 30% of the electorate abstained or spoiled. Spain hasn’t had a 50% majority government in decades: both mean parties have largely governed with tacit cooperation by regional parties who do not join the government. Italy?!! Belgium.
The SNP have never been invited to be part of government so whether they would participate or not is untested. However they sit as MPs and participate actively. To say their voters are not represented is nonsense.
You can cherrypick all you want. I’m not saying PR is perfect but FPTP almost always leads to strong government representing a minority of voters. PR ensures parliamentary representation is proportional to the public vote which must be an improvement. Coalition government can be very successful and is certainly preferable in difficult times when a public unity and support is highly desirable.
SNP until recently barely participated in the Commons. It has has had three elections where it could have chosen to explore a coalition with Lab but did nothing. It hasn’t even reached out to other separatist parties to form some form of voting block.
The SNP has its own reasons to behave as it does. Until recently they had few MPs at Westminster. They participate now because the large number of seats they have gives them a powerful voice.
The behaviour of one party is irrelevant to a discussion about the electoral system.
This French election has shown for a second time how western democracy is in danger. The Athenian version lasted 200 years, the Roman, almost 500 (200 of which allowed votes by plebs). Modern western democracy started in the aftermath of the industrial revolution and throughout the west, democracy was balanced by left and right parties with a mutual interest in a status quo which we took for granted.
The French traditional left and right all together took less than 15% of the votes here, previously the upper limit for the extremists. Today the extremists took over 70% of the vote. About 30% abstained. The dichotomy across the West has changed from left-right to inward-outward looking. Who can doubt, seeing the fervour of Trumpists, Brexiters and Gillets Jaunes that once voted in, their champions will change the rules to stay in and so drift into the democratic twilight of Brazil, India & Mexico ? That enough pork could then be found to buy support for changing then abolishing the rules ? Easy as that.
Those who abstain should not despise the right to vote, because it seems to them to be a freely given right. Rights do not always endure. They should be careful of what they do not wish for.
In your estimation, Guy, who is the “traditional left and right” in France, and who are the “extremists”? And where is the centre? Or are we stuck with hyperpartisan polarisation?
It is certainly fair to say that the Republicans got less than 5% and the Socialists less than 2% – I’d describe them as centre right and centre left. I suspect more of the former were supporting Macron, who badges himself as a centrist, and the latter Melenchon, who is certainly more radical left, and very nearly got into the second ballot instead of Le Pen and the radical right.
You appear to be classifying Macron and En Marche – with 27% in the first round – as extremists. Is that correct?
An interesting question to consider is what might happen in the next French presidential election. Can someone cultivate a position as Macron’s natural successor, where most of the voters are, somewhere in the centre ground, not out at the extremes?
Fair question. In my village (just 1h north of Paris) 75 folk voted for Macron, but 175 for Le Pen. My neighbours are not “extremists”. But what I meant by extremists was, “those who once in power would change the rules to remain there.”
Of course that could be anyone- certainly Trump, certainly BoJo, but they feared losing the support of their parties and being forced out if they tried it on (to a degree).
I suspect that the post war communists who fought elections in many continental democracies would not have been so constrained and their voters would have preffered their ideology to following tiresome rules; nor would Le Pen; jury out on Melanchon.
It seems to me that, aided by social media and by some not so good chaps, our societies have become so polarised that many will vote for party before country/system. I fear that many, especially those who are scunnered and abstain, do not see the danger and it can easily become too late. How late it already is, how late.
On your last point, quite agree, where does the current single centre system go from here? It will be fascinating to see if LREM is just two flashes in the pan inspired by one man, or if it can grow into a traditional party: there are plenty of other major players and they may split along traditional l-r lines: if that happens will my “extremists” then fade away?
“There is no final victory, as there is no final defeat. There is just the same battle. To be fought, over and over again. So toughen up, bloody toughen up.”