Watching Jean-Luc Mélenchon make his announcement for 2017, the first feeling it inspires in me is profound exasperation.
The scenario is already complicated, but now more than ever the common good must prevail.
For over 20 years, we’ve been subjected to the same policies that produce the same effects: always more gifts for the richest, always more unemployment and insecurity for the majority of us, always less purchasing power, always less social protection and public services…
All of this is wanted and supported by a MEDEF that always wants more.
The right wing, and since 2012 Hollande, Valls and the PS leadership, have implemented these policies with zeal, anticipating the demands of MEDEF.
Now, with the issue of stripping nationality and the “constitutionalization” of the state of emergency, this government is chasing the most reactionary themes of our country, breaking with the spirit of the Republic.
Are we doomed to the worst?
Are we condemned to submit to the demands of shareholders?
Are we doomed to the ego wars and the fragmentation of those who at least share a desire for social transformation?
Are we condemned to remain mere spectators of a play that will decide, no more no less, our future and that of our children?
Are we doomed to endure the worst-case scenario in 2017?
I do not think so.
We are undoubtedly a majority on the left thirsty for life, thirsty for social justice, progress, freedom, equality, and fraternity.
A majority unwilling to endure the sequence of 2016-2017.
Beyond the motivations, sometimes different, of those who carry them, the multiplication of calls for primaries reflects an aspiration to be able to decide.
But decide on what precisely?
Decide to nominate a single left-wing candidate for 2017, even if this candidate might continue the disastrous policies since 2012? Not so much for me.
Designate a candidate who advocates for a left-wing alternative to the policies we endure and renews hope? I prefer this, and for 2017 it is the only thing that can thwart the three-way scenario.
And in that case, on what basis, on what platform, what commitments? Should it be the result of collective development and validation, or should we rally to an already “tied-up” program?
The questions are numerous in people’s minds while we witness political maneuvers in every direction.
Those from a PS left trying to force Hollande into a primary to get rid of him, those of a part of the PS leadership attempting to regain control, those of a Valls calculating on Hollande’s failure to project himself for the next move in 2022… The list is long.
One thing is certain however, what is at stake in 2017 is the risk of the disappearance, in this country, of political currents that advocate for social transformation. It is the risk of seeing social hope, synonymous with progress and solidarity, disappear for long decades.
In this situation, haste is not the best approach. Let us take the time to think together. Isn’t it better to pause, for a moment, to reflect?
Reflect collectively on a subversive process to overturn the deadly logic of presidentialization.
A subversive process, for example, by reversing the logic “Proclamation of the candidate then presentation of the platform.” Let us precede “the primary” for choosing a candidate with a collective development and validation (why not through a vote) of a platform upholding the collective ambition of a left-wing alternative to liberal policies.
After this first phase of the process, a second could occur to designate he or she best able to carry this platform during the presidential election.
Is such a process, or something along these lines linking development and designation, desirable, conceivable, and possible?
Perhaps before delving deeper into the primary debate, or supporting this or that self-proclaimed candidate, we need to push this debate.
This time for reflection and collective construction is essential, because otherwise we will only have default choices and popular indifference before us.
