As 'centre' is dissolved in EU politics, who stands for left: Tsipras or Le Pen?

The victory of the 'moderates' against the 'radical right' in the first elections following Brexit and Trump shocks caused relief not only among German political 'centre' but also the 'left' from all over Europe. It seems that the 'centre' has already been dissolved in the political arena of the Union
Monday, 27 March 2017 06:15

The "populism" currently rising in Europe had first peaked during Brexit and then entered into a new phase in the wake of US President Donald Trump’s victory. According to liberal/democrat publications from the US and the EU, the relations between Trump and Euro-right must have been deeper than thought. A new "radicalism", it is claimed, was about to drag down the world with itself into the abyss.

Accordingly, it is not a big surprise that the Western liberal establishment welcomed the Holland election results. What a grace! Rutte and his "center-right" party had left racist, Islamophobic, anti-immigrant, anti-EU Geert Wilders behind. Moreover, other parties in Holland announced their unwillingness for a possible coalition with Wilders. For this very reason, the Chancellor of the ultimate motive of the EU, Angela Merkel of Germany, did not hide her exultation for the election result calling it as “a clearly pro-Europe sign.” 

Across the Rhine, the “centre” candidate of France Emmanuel Macron evaluated Rutte’s victory, asserting that it showed "undeterminedness of radical right’s victory" and that the "progressivists gained momentum."

While the result is "a clear victory against radicalism" for the French President François Hollande, it is "inspiring for many" according to the President Jean-Claude Juncker of the European Commission.

Jean-Marc Ayrault, the French Foreign Minister, on the other hand, congratulated the people of Holland for "halting the radical right."

THE CENTRE THAT DISSOLVES

But it is quite unlikely to make sense of what liberals, and those democrats, social democrats, and leftists who tag behind the former recently, are happy for.

Let’s look at Holland case. The first three parties are “centre right” VVD, fascist PVV and, another right-wing party, the Christian Democrats (CDA). On the other hand, the Workers’ Party, which was one of the former partners of VVD in power, had a dramatic loss, losing its seats from 38 to 9.

What is more striking is the fact that both Prime Minister Rutte of VVD and conservative CDA included Wilders’ anti-immigrant discourse to their election campaigns in order to outcompete him. In other words, the "centre" is readjusting itself according to the racist party. This is the picture liberals are so happy about. Res ipsa loquitur.

A similar situation is taking place in France and Germany, both of which will hold elections this year. Marine Le Pen, the candidate of the proto-fascist National Front against Macron in presidential elections, does not hide her affinity with other right-wing populist leaders in Europe. The estimations suggest that Le Pen, who favours collaboration with Russia, promotes halting the war in Syria, opposes to austerity plans, and propagates anti-immigrant policies, would possibly lose against Macron.

BUT WOULD HER DEFEAT REALLY MATTER?

It is also clear that in Germany, AfD (Alternative for Germany) will lose against Merkel. The real challenge for Angela Merkel –the latest “leader of the Free West” figure- is Martin Schulz, the candidate of another pro-establishment party, the German Social Democrats.

It is no surprise that the same Merkel who had been declared “the mother of refugees” a year ago passed the notorious Dublin Regulation and signed an extradition of refugees agreement with Turkey. Those who make an uproar against the refugee camps of Hungary’s right-wing populist leader keep silent when it comes to Merkel’s leaving the refugees to a similar fate. Alas, Germany is the new Mecca of the liberal left!

On the other hand, Michael Roth, German Minister of the EU Relations, recognizes the deadlock of Europe steered by Germany against the new “populist wave” in his suggestion. Roth offers to shift the focus of fiscal and political pressure Germany imposes on from peripheral states of Europe to the centre. The target is France. He asks for “speeding up the reforms” in case Macron wins the election. The meaning of this in the language games of German politicians and bureaucrats is to further tighten the German reins over Europe. In a nutshell: austerity must go on!

However, Roth is well aware of the possible outcomes of such “tightening” policy, therefore he states that the EU should reconsider the harsh fiscal rules and adds: “we must keep the political costs in mind. If the ultimate result will be the presidency of Marine Le Pen, then we should not support these [fiscal measures].”

Yet the mealy-mouthed discourse of the centre points out to a dead end. The irony is that those who try to mitigate the new alleged threat to the establishment, namely the right-wing populism, through partly adopting the latter’s discourse, are hoping to keep the existing financial policies at the same time. The “centre” that dissolves, wills to embrace the fascists while throttling the working people. The formula is, liberalism (the “old” centre) plus austerity: right-wing par excellence!

Is it possible not to see that this very formula means exactly the restructuring of the European politics with regard to the right? As a matter of fact, it is not even stupidity to anticipate for a possible open space for the “left“ in these new coordinates arranged according to liberalism and right-wing populism. I will return to this shortly after.

IS NOT TRUMP GOOD FOR THE EUROPEAN RIGHT?

The thesis that Trump’s performance does not do good for the European right is the product of the same reasoning, which ignores the recent rupture in European politics, and assumes that the liberal establishment sustains without any crisis.

David A. Graham from The Atlantic too is one of those who concludes so, in the aftermath of Wilders’ defeat in the Holland election. Graham confesses that it is “too early to announce the death of the populist wave” and yet he suggests that Trump’s rise to power did not give the anticipated momentum to the European right.

And then he feels obliged to mention the fact that Rutte too is not that “dove” given his attitude about immigration.

A similar claim had been made before by the CNN columnist David A. Andelman. As early as February, he had asked “Is European populism crumbling since Trump?” and claimed that anti-immigrant and pro-Putin discourses of the US President were hindering the influence of Marine Le Pen in France.

Nevertheless, one must keep in mind that the process works bilaterally. The “radical right” whose distance with the “centre” is diminishing now, might not keep insisting on exiting the Eurozone, for instance. Such is clear in the example of Le Pen, but the same Le Pen manages to offer a restoration of the national currency at the same time, and thus adjusting her policy. Perhaps Le Pen does not insist on exiting the NATO, and yet she manages to include increasing the military budget for “national defense” in her programme.

On the other hand, given the relations with Russia, there are not any signs of Western oligopolies for receding from the Eurasian “initiative.” Reaching a balance with Russia while encompassing the PRC; roughly put, this is the gist of new imperialist policy. Whether it fails or not, that is another question; but it is inevitable for the Western political equation to be restructured according to these axes. Therefore, it is in vain to wait for the right-wing “populism” to wane in the short term.

In this regard, “Trumpism” looks like a purified manifestation of American exceptionalism rather than another example of average European populism. Moreover, although the current framework of the German capital for guaranteeing its expansion is “liberalism plus free trade”, it is inevitable that the expansion will turn into an explicit militarism. Germany has been giving such signals for quite some time now. If you wish, check out Germany’s military operations in Africa and the role Berlin plays in Ukraine.

AND WHAT OF THE LEFT?

The agenda of the European “left” has long been determined by the anti-austerity and anti-neoliberalism discourses. And as the crisis of capitalism deepens, it tends to converge to the “centre.”

Yet this is not a deterministic outcome. It is more about the quality of the crisis in Europe and the left’s response to it. The fact that there occurred an attempt to restore capitalism in southern Europe, to which James Petras had pointed out two years ago, meant the disintegration of the traditional conservative right/social democracy dichotomy and the construction of a new “centre” in countries like Portugal, Spain, and Greece.

Greece is the typical example of this process. For the Greek government is constituted by two “sister” populist parties, the “left-wing” SYRIZA and the “right-wing” ANEL, both of which aimed for votes of the fascist Golden Dawn, and thus legitimizing the latter. It is difficult to foresee for how long this new “centre” will carry the Greek politics; however, it is clear that the southern Europe save Italy follows a similar trajectory.

At this point, I must give due to European right-wing populists that they follow a much more “radical” programme than that of the left-wing. Exit from Eurozone, national sovereignty, questioning the NATO… The meaning of “radicalism” becomes clearer as we look how the SYRIZA turned the Aegean Sea into an inner lake for the NATO. Also, the honour of knitting Greece up with Israel belongs to the “leftist” Tsipras now!

As the European “left”, or to put it clearly, the liberals run to take sanctuary under their aunt Merkel and uncle Schulz, right-wing populists who are coupled with Putin contribute to the restructuring of the European politics. In this setting, the only open space for the “left” is to legitimize reformism via pro-refugee slogans. This also means that there is nothing corresponding to the “realistic politics” that the liberal left has been clamouring about so far.

Once again, the opposite is justified: one should aim for a revolutionary grab of power, even for smaller reforms and betterments!