Storm in a glass
Sam White
Paris
t is now evident that the French Socialist 'government is split on the issue that was always calculated to split it — economic policy. It would be tempting to see the division as between so-called Marxists and Social Democrats, but it is more complex than that. M. Jacques Delors, the finance minister who provoked the row last week with his call for a 'pause' in the Government's reform measures and was promptly contradicted by his Prime Minister, M. Mauroy, who promised that they would continue at their present pace, now calls the whole affair `a storm in a glass of water'. if that is so, then it can only mean that he has received private assurances from President Mitterrand that his point has been taken. Nobody who knows the single-minded Delors can think otherwise, especially as it is now known that he offered his resignation at least once before and that in his speech about a `pause' he clearly hinted that he was prepared to offer it again. Basically both men in their conflicting speeches last week wanted to reassure, but they wanted to reassure different audiences. M. Delors wanted to reassure a sorely tried business community that it is now safe to plan for the future and invest, while M. Mauroy, who is no revolutionary himself either, wanted to reassure a working class which might be influenced by communist charges that the Government was being too timid. The Communists are, of course, in the Government but, as they themselves blandly put it, `not of it'. What Mauroy most fears is that they will use the present difficulties to regain the ground they lost to the socialists in the last elections.
In short, what the debate is really about is whether at this stage it is preferable to appease capitalists or a restless working class. In case this sounds far-fetched or an over-simplification, I give you the evidence of Jean Daniel of the left wing Nouvel Observateur. M. Daniel is now very much an insider, along with the proprietor of his journal who is also the owner of the socialist daily Le Malin, Claude Perdril, and his account of the dispute in the current issue of his publication is very much an insider's one. He says that for the Prime Minister there are three levels of power: the first, political, is in Socialist hands, the second, economic, remains largely capitalist and the third working class, which for the greater part is manipulated by the Communists and their trade union federation the CGT and which for the moment remains 'reasonable'. However, to agree to a pause would be instantly interpreted as collaboration with the class enemy and a betrayal and would be fully exploited by the Communists. And what would be gained by it? Nothing, because the employers would still be unwilling to invest until they saw clear signs of an upturn in the economy. It would mean losing working class support without any compensating economic advantage.
To this Daniel Delors replies that economic power is no longer concentrated in private hands, and when in fact the state controls the banks and the entire credit system as well as exports, insurance and exchange, `it controls practically everything and, in any case, the essential'. Under those conditions the employers are transformed from class enemies into `social partners' who want above all to know what the new rules really are without being constantly threatened with `radicalisation' and vague and contradictory legislation. To fight against inflation and unemployment he claims a `dynamic' partnership with the employers is essential. 'It is not that which will lose us working class support, but economic failure'. These are, according to Daniel, the issues that divide Delors and Mauroy and on which only Mitterrand can now adjudicate. It is urgent that he does so for, just as the employers are uncertain about his future intentions, so are some of his ministers. They are beginning to ask themselves whether they are there simply as temporary window dressing to be swept aside when camouflage is no longer necessary or whether they have a more substantial role. I have already mentioned one pointer as to the way Mitterrand's decision may go, and that is Delors'description of last week's incident as `a storm in a glass of water'. Another is the wholly surprising support Delors has received from the leader of the left wing of the Socialist Party and France's nearest equivalent to Tony Benn, JeanPierre Chevenement. He is certainly no social democrat, but he is a close political ally of Mitterrand and by coming down on Delors' side he gave a pretty good indication that Mitterrand will do so too. A major factor which Mitterrand will have to bear in mind, however, in considering Delors' future will be the serious consequences of his possible resignation. It would seriously damage confidence both at home and abroad just at a time when such confidence as there is, is in desperate need of husbanding. Popular in the country, he is unpopular inside the government where he is regarded with considerable suspicion by the old guard of the Socialist Party.
He is one of the few self-proclaimed social democrats inside the leadership, for although there are others, they are somewhat shame-faced about it. Then his background is against him. He is both a Catholic who first made his mark in the Christian trade union movement and a late corner to socialism. Furthermore, he once served as an adviser to Chaban-Delmas when the latter was Pompidou's Prime Minister. Unwittingly he made an appalling gaffe by using the work 'pause' in his speech, for it is a word which has unhappy historic connotations for French Socialists. It was used by Leon Blum after the Popular Front government had been in power for seven months in an appeal much along Delors' lines, and it signalled the swift collapse of his government.
I revert however to M. Daniel, whose importance as a spokesman for a large segment of opinion both inside the Socialist Party and more importantly inside the government cannot be overrated. He concludes his analysis of the Mauroy-Delors incident with some interesting comments on the past and present role of the Communist Party. Of the past he makes the point that it was not so much the Right that blocked change or the Gaullist constitution of which the Socialists are now the beneficiaries as `the strategic immobilism of the Communist Party'. It was this which came close to condemning the French Left to permanent opposition. `Are we then', he asks, 'to condemn ourselves to sterility by trying to occupy the ground previously held by the Communists out of fear that their influence will begin to sprout again? Or, put another way, in order to prevent the working class from falling into Communist hands, are we going to condemn ourselves to a Communist analysis of the economic system?' He concludes that the Mauroy-Delors incident far from being a 'storm in a glass of water' marks a turning point in the history of the present Socialist government. I think he is right, and I thank him for taking the words out of my mouth.
Previous page
