57% abstention, but who cares?

Across Europe a mere 57% did not vote on the 7^th June, but honestly, who cares? And the results of the PPE (or EPP) – Conservatives / Centre-Right parties, confirm their dominance across Europe. But who cares? To my opinion, this doesn't mean that people have voted for the right or the centre-right, but that the 40% voters who went to the polls were probably biased in favour of centre-right. Because the traditional left parties across Europe are either weakened by their internal problems, or even worse, totally crippled by leadership crises (whether it is the UK Labour, where Gordon Brown had to face resignation of 8 ministers sofar, or the French Socialistes who struggled to elect their leader last year). On top of that, or maybe for that reason, they have abandoned the debate about Europe and left it to the liberals. And that's a shame, because Europe is a reality, and thus deserves to be addressed by left parties, which should provide as strong a vision in that field as they do for national problems.

And that's how the Green / ALE / Les Verts have managed to get such high scores : they occupied the space left empty by Labour & Socialists, talking about their vision of Europe, emphasizing, rightly so, the fact that climate & environment problems could only be tackled at a regional or global level, while proposing solutions in other fields as well. And they were, in France notably, and in other countries, very successful, managing to get up to 15% votes, while traditional left parties were collapsing. They also took advantage from the fact that a number of voters traditionally inclined to the left and who take interest in European issues shifted towards the Green.

An analysis of the pre-election campaigns in both the UK & France shows how the Labour and Parti Socialiste approached the election.

The UK, first. Having opted for a UK-based vote, I watched carefully the messages broadcasted by the main parties, Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats. None of them even said a single word about Europe in what they called the 'European Elections broadcast' (as I couldn't believe my eyes, I had to double-check I'd downloaded the correct programme, and not the local elections part. But yes, it was indeed, but not rightly so, I'd say, the 'European Elections' bit). So it was only babbling about the UK politics, and how each of them would manage this country properly etc...While the Green Party talked about the role they had played, and could play, in Europe, tackling the European Commission on environmental issues (Genetically Modified Organisms, correctly labelled food packaging, toxic-free toys...), but insisting also on the role they could play for education, economy..., using the clever tagline 'You might think you know us, but...think again'. This double strategy of mentioning practical achievements, as well as relating to people's preoccupations in areas traditionally privileged by left parties (economy, helthcare, jobs, human rights) seems to have paid off, as an incremental 45% share of the voters chose them in 2009 vs. 2004.

France then. Apart from the fantastic job achieved by the leader of the newly formed Green union, Daniel Cohn Bendit, or as we call him in France 'Dany the Red', who, like the Phoenix, ressuscited from his ashes ; apart from the impact this character had on the results (15% share of the votes, #2 in France and on-par with the Parti socialiste, with 14 MEPs elected), it is interesting to see how the main parties dealt with the campaign.

Both the Centre-Right (UMP, Nouveau Centre, Progressistes – 28% share of votes, 29 MEPs) and the Green (Europe Ecologie) had simple and clear proposals, covering issues ranging from environment to socio-economics (the following are extracts of their respective campaign leaflets) : 'we will commit to creating a true industrial policy in Europe', 'we will tackle the issue of illegal immigration', 'we will re-orientate our economic model towards a new green expansion based on innovation' (UMP) ; 'create a minimum salary across Europe', 'massively invest in education, research and culture', 'prevent on a European scale diseases such as cancer, asthma, obesity, hypertension' (Europe Ecologie). Those were presented as bullet points, in a very clear presentation that highlighted them. A proper campaign leaflet from people who take the election seriously.

On the other hand, the Parti Socialiste had oriented its campaign on attacking the right, and in particular N. Sarkozy. So instead of focusing on effective proposals, it spent half of the leaflet criticising N. Sarkozy and the impact of the liberal system in Europe. While the other half indeed included a number of effective proposals, these were diluted in the overall presentation, and made the whole leaflet look like it was full of technocratic jargon, made by people who didn't really care for what they were talking about.

So what's going on here? It is well known that the representatives chosen for Euro elections are not the biggest stars of their party. As an example, Brice Hortefeux, elected MEP for UMP/PPE, will not go to Strasbourg, he has higher ambitions for himself (such as becoming Prime Minister for Nicolas Sarkozy). So is it that all these parties consider Europe is and should remain devoted to technocrats, that the European Parliament is just an excuse, that the Real-Politik is till only done in the countries? Most certainly. And this is where it matters. We, the people, need a strong federal Europe, that is not only dominated by a liberal view. And that's where the left parties should take it seriously, that's where they have a definite role to play. They obviously haven't understood it, but the people who voted for the Green 'en masse' have. Future will tell if the left gets the message at some point, instead of focusing on their short-sighted tactics only inspired by getting the votes and staying into power.

De la démocratie - of democracy and other things

My last post was about the failures the democratic system has shown recently in the UK with the handling of the G20 protests. But, they can't always be wrong. Some of their achievements are amazing. I'm actually reacting to this petition that has been created on the Prime Minister website, asking the PM to...resign!

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/

Yes dear readers, you've read it well – the PM website hosts petitions that are created by the citizens, asking him various things about various subjects. And this one, which has been created recently, has gathered already over 33,000 signatures. And is the biggest petition on the site to date. That only shows how fed up the British people are with their current government...but this is another debate, and I'm not talking here about the validity of the petition.

Just when I think about the way the man who stands in office at The Palais of Elysée, obviously controls all media and also manages to be in the news every single day, one way or the other, I can't imagine he would allow something similar to happen. Well of course, the UK and the French political systems are different, but they both belong to the same kind of government: the democratic system.
A quick look at the basics shows interesting definitions of democracy, and in particular the importance of the following guardians – freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press.

Wikipedia - Democracy
Even though there is no universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes. The first principle is that all members of the society (citizens) have equal access to power and the second that all members (citizens) enjoy universally recognized freedoms and liberties.
However, if any democracy is not carefully legislated to avoid an uneven distribution of political power with balances, such as the separation of powers, then a branch of the system of rule could accumulate power and become harmful to the democracy itself. The "majority rule" is often described as a characteristic feature of democracy, but without responsible government it is possible for the rights of a minority to be abused by the "tyranny of the majority". An essential process in representative democracies are competitive elections, that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech and freedom of the press are essential so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.

France has a tradition of controlling TV since Charles de Gaulle , but after him the audiovisual policy has been paved with a number of comical episodes or perturbed variations – from the creation of the first private[1] terrestrial channel in the 80s, the ludicrous '5' on the pattern of La Cinque in Italy, owned y Berlusconi himself, to the recent debate about advertising on public-owned channels - loss of which, voted in 2009, will foster even more control by the government, obviously, as the French President is now able to nominate the head of the public channels.

So, with Sarkozy in power, the links between press and politics have been stronger than ever, let's look at some facts about key press groups:
Lagardère Media Active detains shares in Le Monde (15%), Le Parisien (25%); Arnaud Lagardère, General Manager of Lagardère Group, often describes Sarkozy as his 'brother'.
DI group, a subsidiary of LVMH, property of Bernard Arnault, owns Les Echos; Bernard Arnault was bestman at Sarkozy's wedding in 1996.
Socpresse - Marcel Dassault, owns Le Figaro; Serge Dassault, General Manager of Socpresse, publicly supports Nicolas Sarkozy.
Bolloré Médias, owned by Vincent Bollore, has 30% of Havas and SFP, as well as 40% of the well-known research company CSA; CSA is specialised in opinion surveys and consistently cited by French press before key elections; Vincent Bolloré lent Sarkozy his yacht to 'relax' after the presidential election in May 2007 (that was gross, if I may say so...).
In terms of TV, TF1, the biggest channel by its audience, is private since 1987, and belongs to construction tycoon Bouygues (43% capital); Martin Bouygues, was bestman at Sarkozy's wedding, and is godfather to N. Sarkozy's son Louis; Patrick Le Lay, TF1's General Manager from 1988 to 2007, and Etienne Mougeotte, TF1's editor in chief from 1987 to 2008, are both close friends of Sarkozy.

So to conclude I would just like to ask: doesn't it look like we are strongly and blatantly manipulated? Don't get me wrong: it would be extremely naïve to ignore the fact that governments are manipulating opinion, which is the way they get into power...and hold to it. All governments do that, it is part of the democratic game, and it's the role of press to prevent the manipulation of opinion, by informing citizens. But when press is controlled by closed allies of the government, isn't its freedom getting a bit twisted?

[1] Historically, the first private channel was pay-TV Canal+, created in 1983.