HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.ORG.UK ---------------------------
What is left unsaid of French electoral dilemma http://www.edu-irep.org/actu.htm After the "surprise" of the first-ballot results, in French presidential election, it took only some hours for the edifying legend, devoted to reassure French and foreign people engaged in the political struggle, to be said and written. The current explanation is double: an important part of French voters has become racist and xenophobic, as in some neighbouring countries, and there were too many left-wing candidatures. It follows a binary choice for the second ballot: on one hand the extremist venture, on the other hand the republican values. From the left, as from the right, people are then going to "bar Le Pen". Too bad for the left-right divide, besides already rather fading after two "cohabitations" and years of common European policy. Too bad, incidentally, for "democratic liberties" and for "rights equality" that are not to be granted to voters whose votes are not good, even if they come from traditional strongholds of the left. The respect for universal suffrage cannot prevail over "modernity". Is it a reason, on the pretext of disagreeing with the policy of both Mister Chirac and Mister Jospin, for not pushing them to the second ballot which was their natural and expected rank? Actually, the campaign of both second-ballot candidates runs in the very field of extreme right. It is merely, indeed, an escalation on the topic of insecurity. Now, France is still far to experience US towns' insecurity. That the candidates exaggerate the problem of security at every possible opportunity is a product of ordinary demagogy and would not deserve to be highlighted. On the other hand, that a population, who predominantly has still been neither victim nor witness of an assault, offers a sound box to that topic is much more interesting. Actually, there is an enormous discrepancy between politicians and population. The first ones invoke only criminal acts, while the feeling of the second one involves all uncertainties and alarms that henceforth dominate her daily life: real or expected job insecurity, uncertainty of incomes and pensions, excessive debt, crisis of education, the lack of perspective for youth, the dropping confidence in the future. The source of these alarms can be summarized by a name that has become symbolic: Maastricht. Would it be there the true aim of that second ballot? One could believe it, since Maastricht Treaty's permanence or revocation indeed seem to be confronted through Chirac's and Le Pen's candidatures. On one hand, the continuation of European integration, on the other hand its interruption. The choice would be then between, on one hand, a Maastricht fatality that can be exceeded, but with the republican values, and, on the other hand, a halt to social and national dissolution, but with the xenophobia. But this dilemma is only a seeming one. In what extend is the Treaty of Maastricht at the origin of the very real damages which the population is subjected to? The answer lies in the treatment of "budget deficit". We can say that this aspect of the question is totally ignored of the political debate. For most people, it is a rather abstract question. The relationship between the budget deficit and the daily life is hard to realize, and most of parliament members themselves are besides quite unable to do it. The proof is that we saw the elected members of left majority readily voting, every year, a budget in keeping with Maastricht's "convergences" in, then protesting in the streets and in the media against the consequences of their vote, by the side of its victims. No duplicity in this attitude, simple ignorance. Ruling-left members, these very ones who have led France into an accelerated process towards euro , at the cost of one million more unemployed, of a growing labour casualization and of economic desertification of large parts of the territory - what the right would not be able to succeed in - believed wholeheartedly in the quality of their results. They are now claiming to be mortified by the voters' ingratitude; and the most astonishing is that this indignation is not a feigned one. It is then necessary, before going any further, to focus on the mechanism of what is incorrectly called "budget deficit", on Maastricht's clause related to it and on its economic and social consequences. In a household budget, it goes without saying that the exceptional on-credit expanses do not belong to the current account, as such. Only monthly payments for them are taken in account. Now, according to a reason that is related to a pure belief, this logic is refused to public expanses. Such is the first disposition of Maastricht's Treaty which by degree imposes in time a "deficit" close to zero. Then, the State would not have the right to putting in debt. Except through bonds issues, but a second disposition limits this possibility to an arbitrary percentage (60%) of the yearly product (GDP). If such a disposition was extended to the whole economy, there would be no more investment, as investment always exceeds the yearly turnover. The belief that governs these irrational dispositions is nothing else than "inflation". "Budget deficit" would be guilty of causing inflation. This dogma has never been proved. Actually, it is rather proved that "budget deficit" is a factor of growth, even historically the main factor of growth. Now, it is growth which is a factor of inflation. So, the regressive consequences of the "struggle against inflation", and in this aiming the suppression of "budget deficit", become clearer. This suppression depresses growth which in its turn depresses the price index, that is true, but employment, public income, debt capacity and payment capacities, too. And it becomes now clearer that if Maastricht's malediction will not be lifted by Chirac, it is not obvious that it would be by Le Pen, as the simple (indeed desirable) revocation of that treaty does not cancel the belief in the relationship between inflation and "budget deficit". Put in front of a growing inflation due to growth, what would Le Pen do? There is much to bet that he would do as the others: cracking down on public expanses and on salaries. But Jospin and his plural allies would either do nothing else. Le Pen criticizes Maastricht only from a nationalist point of view that is besides not inept. Chirac, symmetrically, pleads against isolationism that is not unfounded. But both are in agreement on economic management, as they share, besides with the left and with most of people, some dogmas well entrenched into the consciences and which govern the crisis. Dogmas which the minds probably will not abandon but, maybe, after some cataclysm or after a long while of sleeping thought. Romain KROES --------------------------- ANTI-NATO INFORMATION LIST ==^================================================================ This email was sent to: [email protected] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84x2u.a9617B Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/register ==^================================================================
