On June 7th, elections will be held in Lebanon and in most of the twenty-seven member states of the European Union. The outcome of the former will depend on radically divergent political orientations and societal projects, not only for the country in question but probably for the entire region. These are sensitive electoral issues for which every vote will count. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said for the latter. In the daily newspaper “Aujourd’hui,” twenty-six foreign journalists accredited in France deliver a damning verdict on this European campaign: “dullness,” “invisibility,” “disinterest,” “non-existence,” “late campaigning,” “lack of debates,” “rejection of Europe.” One would struggle to find any praise. In vain.
All experts agree on the inevitable consequences of this public disaffection: primarily, a scattered – and hence numerically ineffective – transfer of votes to the various peripheral lists as well as to the one, more symbolically, of François Bayrou, capable of crystallizing around him the frustrations and discontent. There is no point in accusing the leader of MoDem of “narcissism” or of stigmatizing his “presidential obsession”: contrary to the repercussions anticipated by the PS and UMP, this strategy significantly aids the deputy from the Pyrénées-Atlantiques in placing him – including for those who might have forgotten him – at the heart of an institutional practice marked by its presidentialization. One can only derive a fleeting glory from the extreme personalization of power if one sternly criticizes it in his main competitor.
But the victory expected will be that of abstention, likely massive: over 55% in the “best” case, perhaps even records in Spain where the threshold of 70% might be crossed. If confirmed, this phenomenon would serve as a warning: a sanction of the ballot box forced, to express itself, to take refuge in non-participation can only betray a lack of confidence in the ability of politicians, of all stripes, to respect the duties and the message contained in the voting ballot.
Politicians bear a heavy responsibility in this negative dynamic. One might credit the French presidency of the Union and the good relationship between Nicolas Sarkozy and Chancellor Angela Merkel, for the successful decisions taken by the G20 in London. But their joint op-ed published this week in “Le Journal du dimanche” struggles to convince due to the use of a considerably worn-out vocabulary, already exploited in similar circumstances.
Electoral campaigns launched belatedly to avoid embarrassing debates, “recycling” and “parachutings” of disavowed ministers, forced inclusion on the lists of local personalities whose European competencies are doubtful, are all elements that lend credence to the “lack of embodiment of the European vote” denounced by former Prime Minister Alain Juppé.
While the notable strengthening of the powers of the Parliamentary Assembly in Strasbourg is touted here and there, do the statements of a government official claiming that a “European Parliament law will not apply in France” because it directly opposes a French law – specifically, penalties regarding illegal downloading on the Internet – not feed this vast movement of disinterest? How do the artificial – and last-minute – reconciliations within the Socialist Party not also invite ridicule?
Finally, how can one accept a European philosophy that only considers consultations when their outcomes are favorable to the expectations of Brussels? Making the Irish vote again until a “yes” is achieved for the Lisbon Treaty, bypassing the French vote by a vote of the National Assembly, besides the harsh disapproval inflicted on voters, do these actions truly help to strengthen the peoples’ trust in the construction of Europe? One would hardly dare mention, horresco referens, the issue of Turkey, whose integration into the Union is openly advocated by Sweden, the next rotating presidency.
