European elections reveal great social polarisation and instability
20 June 2004


Most of Europe's incumbent governments suffered serious reverses at the elections to the  European Parliament. All commentators noted that the governments, especially those in Britain, Poland and Italy, faced a major voter backlash over their military support for the US-led occupation of Iraq.

It was also clear that voters did whatever they could to indicate their rejection of the neoliberal "reforms" of supposedly antiwar governments like those of France and Germany. In addition abstention rates soared. There was a record low turnout of about 44.29 per cent and in the 10 new EU member states this was just 26 per cent.

In the old core states of the EU - where voting levels were usually high -  millions more than usual abstained  (56.9 per cent abstained in France, 57 per cent in Germany, 54 per cent in Spain). In Britain however abstention actually fell (though still at 61.1 per cent) thanks to a new postal voting system.

But it was also clear that more people than usual wanted to use the Euroelections as a referendum to protest against Blair - on the left wing of the political spectrum, against the war policies of Blair; on the right, as an anti-EU plebiscite. In some countries (Austria, France and Spain) the traditional Socialist Parties either in opposition or were until very recently so, proved the main beneficiaries of the protest against neoliberalism and war.

In a few countries left reformist parties (PDS in Germany and Rifondazione Comunista in Italy), identified as enemies of these policies, made small advances. But the main forces of the "far left" who had initiated and led the antiwar and anticapitalist movements since 1999, and had hoped to capitalise on this with an electoral  breakthrough - suffered a rebuff.

The SWP's creature, RESPECT and in France the LO-LCR coalition, both experienced disappointing reverses for their supporters, scoring 1.5 per cent and 3.3 per cent respectively. But it was the reformist governments in power which suffered the biggest hammering from the electors. In Germany the SPD under Chancellor, Gerhard Schröder, suffered because of the massive discontent amongst his party's tradtional base, the organised working class over Agenda 2010.

The SPD's  share of the vote slumped to 21.6 per cent, less than half of that of the Christian Democrats. The PDS, the former East German ruling party saw its vote rise to 6 percent. In the Czech Republic, which only joined the EU on 1 May, the Social Democratic Party led by the Prime Minister Vladimir Spidla took a beating too gaining only 10.5 per cent. Although the right,  the Civic Democratic Party of neoliberal president Vaclav Klaus. Was the main beneficiary, with 31 per cent,  on the Communist Party -  the KSCM - won 20.27 per cent.

In Poland the governing Social Democrats (SLD)- who supported Bush's war and sent Polish troops to Iraq -  also suffered a crushing defeat, getting only 11 per cent of the vote.In contrast the Spanish Socialist  party (PSOE) government, led by Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapater,  which shot to power in response to its promise to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq, won again (albeit by a reduced margin) in recognition that it had kept its word and done so.

In  Austria too the opposition Social democrats (SPÖ) got 33.5 per cent which, a small rise of 1.7 per cent. But the crushing defeat was for the freedom Party of Jörg Haider which ended up  finished with only 6.3 per cent,  a loss of 17.1 per cent.

But Tony Blair's  New Labour was the big loser. It saw its vote slump heavily, (from a low base since 1999 was already a bad result). New Labour fell from 28 per cent  to 22.6, its worst percentage in an election for nearly a century. At the same time its votes in the local elections, tied to the European poll this time saw an even more dramatic collapse. Local officials and defeated candidates overwhelmingly attributed it to the issue of the Iraq war.

But it was not only Social Democrats who took a beating. In France the centre-right Chirac - Raffarin government, fully engaged in the attempt to make the workers pay for Europe's capitalists to catch up with the USA by slashing pensions and privatising public services, suffered a severe mauling. Thus there was a powerful rejection of the policies being pursued by the central powers of the European Union- Germany and France, despite their spurious  "anti-war" credentials. In Italy, Silvio Berlusconi's Forza Italia fell from 25.2 percent in 1999 to just 20.5 percent: 9 percent lower than the party received in the parliamentary elections in 2001.

This represents  a rejection of his support for the war, sending Italian troops to Iraq as well as his ongoing assault on pension rights. Italy has seen constant waves of strikes, one day generals strikes etc, over the last three years. Rifondazione Comunista won 5.8 per cent of the vote, up from 4.3 percent it received in 1999. Another major phenomenon was the eruption of populist parties-  with a Eurosceptic coloration.

In the Netherlands the list headed by former EU official, Paul van Buitenen, won enough votes to enter the European Parliament on its first try. Van Buitenen exposed corruption in the EU Commission and was promptly sacked. In Austria a new list led by Hans-Peter Martin, won 14 percent of the vote, on a similar anti-corruption and waste ticket.

In Sweden too the big surprise in the election was the success of a newly formed "Eurosceptic" party called the Junilistan  or June List, which got 14,4 percent. In Poland the real surprise was that the anti-EU and ultra- nationalist Catholic League of Polish Families (LPR) received 15.74 percent, stealing the expected thunder of  Samoobrona (Self Defence),  another Europhobic party led by the right-wing populist  former pig farmer Andrzej Lepper,  which won 12 percent. Lepper was facing  prosecution for his racist outbursts  but claimed the electors had acquitted him.

The UK Independence Party (UKIP) in Britain made headlines across Europe by its rapid advances. It is a reactionary populist party with a heavy dose of racism. It gained 16% of the votes (12 seats up from 3). But also it did well in the Greater London Authority elections,  gaining 157,000 votes (8.4%) and winning 2 seats in the assembly, a number equal to the Greens.

What does this rise of anti-EU populism right across the continent represent? Firstly it is obviously a response to the present phase of EU enlargement, to the "threat" that a new more centralist constitution being campaigned for by Germany and France plus the centralising drive of their great industrial-financial monopolies, seems to represent to  the small capitalists, farmers and the petit bourgeoisie Some populist parties in the west voice the increasing alarm this petty bourgeoisie feels plus a racism and chauvinism about the immigration of "cheap labour" and "cheap goods" from the new EU entrants from "the East".

In the eastern countries like Poland there is a virulent nationalism, aimed in the opposite direction, i.e. small farmers fearing the competition of large scale western farms and agribusinesses. Other like UKIP represent behind the scenes funding from fractions of  big capital hostile to the increased federalism of a German and French dominated EU because their markets and bases are transatlantic or global- perhaps intending to scare the Tories back to the right.

Disillusion with politicians ("they are all the same". "they are all corrupt") is widespread from Portugal to Poland. Hence the role that media personalities (faded films stars and sports personalities, chat show hosts, comedians, business men etc.)  play in these in these populist parties.

In France the alliance between Lute Ouvriere LO)  and the Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire (LCR) is the flag ship of the groupings gathered together in the European Anticapitalist Left- though LO is not part of this international grouping.

The candidates of the LCR and LO, Olivier Besancenot and Arlette Laguiller got 2.8 million votes between them in the first round of the presidential elections of 2002  and last summer the bourgeois media was predicting that they might be on the verge of a big electoral breakthrough- maybe achieving 15 to 25 percent. But their hopes were dashed in the regional elections of March 2004 when they got  "only' around one million votes. Now they have lost half this figure and lost all their five seats in the European parliament.

The terse post-election statement from Besancenot and Laguiller admits that their electors deserted them, either for abstention or for the Socialist Party. An LCR spokes person is recorded as saying that it was the reduction in social struggles over recent months which led to their losses. Too right!  But this is also a repayment for LO and the LCR themselves turning away from the struggles of the Spring and Summer of 2003 towards electioneering.

This turn was manifest at the ESF in Paris in November 2003, when prominent LCR militants, with their G10 Solidaire and teachers union hats on, downplayed the idea of a European day of action and general strike against the offensive against social services, nationalised industries etc.

In fact LO and the LCR got a beating because their flaccid reformist platform and passive propagandist campaign left workers thinking we might as well have real reformists who might get into government (the SP) rather than these imitation ones.  Now these bankrupts say in Rouge "after the Ballot box back to the streets." In Britain things scarcely went better for the SWP. Having ditched the Socialist Alliance with its left refomist programme aimed at regrouping the left and individual left reformists for an outrageous populist adventure called RESPECT- the Unity coalition. They  aimed at grabbing the Muslim vote, traditionally Labour, but outraged by Blair's war. Yet in the European elections the overall performance of RESPECT was poor, with only 1.5 per cent nationwide (a quarter of a million votes).

It best showing was in London where George Galloway, a flamboyant maverick, who courageously opposed the war and got kicked out of the Labour Party for it, but who otherwise has some very un-left wing views (anti-abortion, pro-death penalty) got 91,175 votes or 4.8 per cent. They did less well than expected in the West Midlands, with 2.4 per cent, an area with a large Muslim electorate that John Rees the SWP main leader has been sedulously wooing. This gave the lie to their predictions that Rees was in with a chance of being elected. They did even worse in the North West  with only 1.2 per cent.

The SWP is consoling itself with how "well it did" in the London Elections and in two isolated council elections in Preston and Wales.  RESPECT's London Mayoral candidate Lindsey German got 3.3% and its overall share of the vote  for the Assembly was 4.6 per cent. Its only real breakthrough was in City & East, London's biggest concentration of Muslim voters, where Oliur Rahman a young trade unionist,  gained 19,675 votes or  15 per cent. In short RESPECT did not markedly improve on the showing of the Socialist Alliance, at its peak.

But it has made a huge political retreat: from standing on a left reformist platform, at least identified with the working class and socialism, to the vaguest populism. Moreover it has shamefully tolerated RESPECT's  figurehead George Galloway, proclaiming his opposition to abortion in the press and its Muslim supporters drawing attention to this fact as a reason to vote for him.

The Scottish Socialist Party, with 5.2 per cent, made  a small advance, a rise of 1.2 per cent, though not enough to win a seat. So what do the European elections show?

• There was a popular vote against the imperialist war in Iraq, especially in those countries whose governments enthusiastically backed Bush's war .

• There was a massive expression of opposition against the neo-liberal attacks on welfare and pensions such as Agenda 2010.

• Wherever the reformist parties are in power and implement a neo-liberal and/or pro-war policy they are rebuffed and rejected by the vanguard of the working class - using any means to hand from abstention to voting for left populist or left reformist parties. Where the main socialist parties are in opposition and verbally against these policies they renew their credibility, as happened in Spain and France. This is also true for some of the ex-Stalinist parties.

• The far left, despite their active role in the anti-neoliberal and anti-war resistance, proved unable to gain from this mass discontent (an exception being in Portugal)

• The elections showed the enormous distrust - albeit partly expressed in a very confused and populist way - of the people against the project of a new European superpower.

It showed the confused state of the middle classes as well as sections of the working class who expressed their protest by supporting populist forces - some of them right-wing (like UKIP), some of them single-issue lists (HPM in Austria or similar lists in Belgium and Netherlands).

It also showed the continued growth of fascist, semi-fascist, and fascist front parties, parties like the Vlaams Bloc, the BNP and the Front Nationale who all increased their votes, as did reactionary chauvinist parties like the Danish People's Party, Allianza Nazionale and Lepper's party in Poland. That the far right grew more than the far left is a wake up call indeed. In short the plebiscitary character of the Euroelections  enabled substantial sectors of social base of  many of the main bourgeois and  reformist workers parties  to express their extreme discontent with their "natural" leaders.

Indeed they face the real danger that they will lose either permanently or for an extended period, the social base on which they rest. This base could move seriously to the right and to the left. Last but not least these elections are a wake-up call to the so-called revolutionary left. Pretending to be reformist, "socialist" or worse still, classless populists, is the road to disaster.

It will simply send the vanguard of the working class back to their "home" in the mainstream socialist parties , the minute the latter can refresh themselves in opposition. Over the past three years or so a section of the workers' vanguard and the anticapitalist youth showed on the streets, and even in the polling booths, that they were looking for an alternative. But the response of the "revolutionaries" like the LCR and the SWP was to move sharply to the right - to fuse with what they thought was the "naturally reformist" consciousness of these workers.

Above all, they failed to offer the perspective of a new workers' party, one that takes up a militant struggle against neoliberal attacks and imperialist war and debating out a new programme. The League for the Fifth International is fighting for such parties and for them to be revolutionary parties, united in a new International. But it is clear that the centrist left (revolution in words, reformism in practical politics)  constitutes an enormous road block on this road.

It is now frittering away the opportunities that the political and social crisis of 1999 - 2003 opened up. The European Social Forum, which meets in October in London, will be an opportunity to challenge this drift and confusion. In any case, this new century of corporate globalisation and "new" imperialism, repeatedly undermines its own stability.

It is unlikely that we will see any very long lasting economic stabilisation nor any powerful and durable revival of traditional reformism. Revolutionaries must bend all their effort to bring about a lasting break of the vanguard fighters, the young generation, from all these bankrupts and misleaders. If not, the forces of the right are strong and growing stronger.