Archives du mot-clé élections

The elections against democracy?

Les élections contre la démocratie ?



Democracy is not limited to free elections that apply the principle of one person, one vote. But even confining itself to such a restrictive conception of democracy, it can be seen that in two old democratic countries of the West, the United States and France, the last elections have only respected the principle in a very formal way. In a few months, these elections have profoundly changed the political situation. At the domestic level and for the United States well beyond.

 In the United States, Hilary Clinton won nearly 66 million votes (48.03% of the votes cast) and Donald Trump nearly 63 (45.94%) in the presidential election. But because of the electoral system, it is Donald Trump with 304 Great voters against 227 for Hilary Clinton (56.5% against 42.2%), who was elected president of the United States! This is the fifth time the phenomenon has occurred. In 1824, 1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016, the president-elect was not the candidate with the most votes.

This is due to the fact that virtually all states use the winner takes all rule, the winner takes everything, which attributes all the major voters of the state to the candidate who has received the majority, relative or absolute, of the votes. Some states are predominantly partisan, or republican or democrat. In this case, whether the dominant party receives 55% or 65% of the votes does not change anything, all the Great voters are attributed to him. On the other hand, in a swing state, the two dominant parties are substantially equal. It only takes a few thousand votes to switch from one party to another so that all the delegates of that state change sides.
This system explains the victory of Donald Trump.
The phenomenon has been known for a long time. And accepted.

The United States today is not very different from yesterday but the policy of the last white president is not exactly the same as that of the first black president! From immigration policy or obamacare inside to positions in foreign policy, on Cop 21, relations with NATO and the European Union or the Middle East …

This seems to illustrate the old slogan,élection, piège à cons, which means, conventionally, that elections are useless. In the specific case, some must regret their non-participation in the vote …

 Another way of democratically escaping from democracy is, what is called in France, the electoral punching of constituencies, in the United States gerrymandering: partisan gerrymandering, party-oriented charcutting when the goal is to accentuate the advantage of a political party, and racial gerrymandering to increase or limit the political weight of a racial minority. This term was born in 1811 when Governor Elbridge Gerry drew a riding in the shape of a salamander to favor his party.

Finally, the number of delegates allocated to each state varies widely: from 1.41 in California to 5.12 in Wyoming, per million inhabitants.

In France, the majority electoral system with two rounds in the presidential and legislative elections with legislative presidential elections entails an even greater distortion between the political forces in the population and in the national representation.

Emmanuel Macron, with 24% of the votes in the first round of the presidential election and 28% in the first round of the legislative elections for his party and 43% in the second, won the post of President of the Republic without any counter-power in the National Assembly but on the contrary a strong absolute majority (308 out of 577). Majority very close to the president because a good part has no personal implantation in his constituency. These candidates were nominated by the president himself and his close guard and were elected on his own name. This allows him to exercise a republican dictatorship, in principle for the next 5 years.
Finally, the program of Emmanuel Macron was known partially and belatedly, as well by the voters as by the persons who were candidates or even elected to the legislative ones.

This does not affect the legality of the election of Emmanuel Macron and his majority. And the dispute can not come, in any case, from those who have been in power until then. They did not change the electoral rules whenever they could, as well as Nicolas Sarkozy and Francois Hollande, because they had taken advantage of it and still hoped to remain in power although they were in the minority in the country, as evidenced by the polls and the results of all by-elections during their quinquennium.
It is also good practice to challenge the legitimacy of the latter election as a result of the high proportion of abstentionists, white or null votes. But this invalidates the system and especially the previous majorities that the president. The other candidates can not rely on superior results.

Les élections contre la démocratie ?

Nevertheless, the extent of the powers available to the President makes one think of the dictator of the Roman Republic: an extraordinary magistrate held full powers for a mandate which could originally not exceed six months. This has not always been the case. Here, except accident, Emmanuel Macron is in power for 5 years. Whatever the results of the polls or of the by-elections or local elections to come.
In the United States, Donald Trump is only elected for 4 years and legislative elections are held every 2 years that can question the Republican majority in Congress.

The first decisions of the President of the Republic show his willingness to make full use of the possibilities offered by the Constitution and to increase his freedom of maneuver: the will to take measures quickly through the use of ordinances, Article 49 -3, extension of the state of emergency, integration of possibilities offered by the state of emergency into normal legislation, assignment of quaestor to the opposition of his majesty and not the opposition party (? ) the most important of the National Assembly, declaration in front of the parliament in Congress in Versailles, which is on the eve of the speech of the Prime Minister in front of the National Assembly which seems to remind the latter its second role in the conduct of government policy, attachment to the President of the Republic of the coordination cell to fight against terrorism, election-nomination of a friend, control of the speech of ministers and their relations with the press, the skilful elimination of François Bayrou, who had created minor problems at the time of the legislative elections, who wanted to be in the government and retain his right to an independent speech, not having sufficiently taken into account that the votes of his group were not necessary to the new president to have an absolute majority in the National Assembly …

Emmanuel Macron, as usual, does not waste time, ensures his bases, solidifies his power as long as he enjoys the support of a parliamentary group, for the moment charmed and held, of public opinion according to the polls before proceeding with legislative measures …

Les élections contre la démocratie ?

Similarly, it has undertaken some maneuvers to obtain an important if not preponderant place at European level. It is not clear that this is so easy. At the symbolic level, the invitation of Donald Trump, the statements on the Cop21 go in this direction. The handshake with Donald Trump whose strength has been magnified to show the place that the president wants, has probably had another interpretation, on the other side of the Rhine, after the affront of Donald Trump to Angela Merkel during their meeting. And short sentences are now beginning to be heard by the Bundesbank President or Angela Merkel, herself, at their press conference …

But President Macron needs concrete results at the economic and budgetary level to make his European positions appear as something other than Gallic sufficiency.

The seizure of power by Emmanuel Macron was quickly carried out at the electoral and institutional level. For the moment, he is on the post-electoral cloud, adored by many despite the sprawl to traditional democratic practices, he can hope to have put on his side all the assets to tackle the measures he wants to impose on French society .
It remains to be seen what will be its answers ……

Les élections contre la démocratie ?
Les élections contre la démocratie ?

Second round and after?

Second tour et après ?
In the first round of the presidential election, 4 candidates obtain around 20% of the votes cast. The others behind Benoît Hamon (6.36%) and Nicolas Dupont-Aignan (4.7%), each get less than 2%.
These 20% do not have the same meaning for all applicants. They give Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen the opportunity to participate in the second round.
It is a remarkable personal success for Emmanuel Macron, unknown a few years ago, having never faced universal suffrage, without any apparatus. He was able to create around his person with a fuzzy program, an impressive dynamic by the media and political people that he provoked. Supports the young candidate harvests throughout the political spectrum. In the media. Aided by the great fear aroused by the possible victory of Marine Le Pen and the floats in the extreme right, disoriented by the misadventures of his stubborn champion.

Asset and problem for Emmanuel Macron: the overflow of disparate rallies, in view of the legislative elections. Candidates, more or less known, today and yesterday, coming from the center, the right or the left, ready to pursue the policy of Mitterrand, Chirac, Sarkozy, Holland but expecting some rewards …
Perhaps, Emmanuel Macron could hire Francois Hollande as adviser to the synthesis …

Marine Le Pen did not arrive, as she hoped and as many announced, at the head of this first round. Nevertheless, she continues to increase in number of votes and in percentage compared to the previous presidential elections.
Considering assured her popular base, she is pursuing a second-round policy by widening her base to the right with Nicolas Dupont-Aignan and returning on promises of retirement at age 60, on the exit of the euro not for to morrow….

We must thank François Fillon. To have, by his stubbornness and his shattering social program, eliminated the right of the presidency. To have revealed how easily the virtuous right is ready to become the extreme right when it finds a champion, apparently clean on him, with the just ostentation that allows to recognize the good society. Fraudster of social fraud, it is by no means hampered by small family arrangements, small gifts between friends.
The eternal contradiction between the moralism displayed for the common people and the morality practiced between one another.

The biggest increase is that of Jean-Luc Mélenchon, rising from 11.10% in 2012 (3 984 822voices) to 19.58% (7 060 885) in 2017 when he could not count neither on a decided party, nor on an important network of elected officials, the difficulty in collecting signatures has clearly shown. And with media more interested, initially, by his character, then by his qualities of speaker, finally by his international tropisms but much more rarely by the work in the elaboration of his program, he has built with the social and the ecological, by his desire of a new democracy with the participation of the maximum number of citizens, by his will to attack the far right vote and abstention (caravans for registration on the electoral roll). In the face of the mobilizations he provoked, the media ended by discovering that he had partially circumvented them by its own means.

During this first round, there has already been talk of the useful vote in favor of Emmanuel Macron. It is not unrelated to the fact that Jean-Luc Mélenchon can not participate in the second round, he missed only 600,000 votes. Nationally, it receives 19.58% of the vote. This percentage is between 27 and 30%, according to the surveys, among 18-24 year olds, twice 2012, 24% among workers, and 22% among employees.
Among Muslims, the most secular candidate of the presidential election obtained 37% of the votes (20% in 2012) against 24% for Emmanuel Macron, 17% for Benoît Hamon, 10% for François Fillon and 5% for Marine Le Pen (Poll Ifop – Le Pèlerin).

Second tour et après ?Since the beginning of the electoral campaign, many are giving wise advice to Jean-Luc Mélenchon: to participate in the brilliant primary of the Beautiful People’s Alliance, to rally Benoît Hamon before he is abandoned by the PS and its electors, Now to join the camp of fear.
Yesterday, the fear of everything had bad press because it urged citizens to vote Le Pen, now the fear of Marine Le Pen has good press to push to Macron vote. But the press is always the press, it always goes in the same direction. Yesterday and today ! Bring back into the ranks and in this case, the vote Emmanuel Macron!
Knowing the diversity of points of view of the supporters of The France insoumise for the vote in the second round, Jean-Luc Mélenchon said he would vote but did not say how. It does not give a voting instruction to preserve the unity of the Insoumis before the legislative élections. While recalling that voting Front National was not an option. Neither for him nor for the Insoumis consulted.
La France insoumise organized a consultation open to all the Insoumis to say what they were going to do in the second round, but this consultation is not normative.
He held out a pole to Emmanuel Macron, asking him to make a gesture on the labor law that Macron immediately rejected.
It was predictable. Perhaps he could have asked for a gesture on the use of 49-3 and the ordinances that Emmanuel Macron said he would use them this summer to go faster. A short-circuit, good start, without democratic debate!

Second tour et après ?
The result of the consultation of the Insoumis is now known. 243,000 people gave their opinion about 55% of the 440,000 registered to support the candidacy of Jean-Luc Mélenchon. Of course, people can change between the time they gave their opinion and the day of the ballot. But this is not a poll, it is the result of a consultation: white or null vote, 36.12%, vote Emmanuel Macron 34.83%, abstention 29.05% (1). Two-thirds 65.17% will not vote for Emmanuel Macron. According to an Elabe BFMTV poll, 44% of Mélenchon’s voters in the first round would vote for Emmanuel Macron.
These results suggest that the Insoumis will count in the coming weeks. A first indication will be given on Sunday by the rate of abstentions, blank or null ballots: in 2012, there were 9,049,998 abstentions (19.65%), and 2,154,956 blank or invalid ballots (5.82% ) …

With the arrival of Emmanuel Macron at the Élysée, they will talk about the triumph of democracy, the Republic, the European Union (which will be called Europe) when we simply elected the ideal son-in-law to continue , the policy pursued for years – with the success known both from a socio-economic and a political point of view with the vote of Marine Le Pen – by the successive rulers whose artisans find themselves in En Marche! The UMPS, as the National Front said, officialized! 

Still, the results of the second round will not settle everything. But to serve as a basis for the discussions, already engaged in all the camps for the legislative investitures. The victory in the presidential election will certainly give a dynamic. It is not certain that it is sufficient to obtain a majority in the National Assembly. Still less a coherent majority. 

From this point of view, Jean-Luc Mélenchon makes risky calculations when he announces that, with the results of the presidential election, La France insoumise can hope to be present in 451 of the 577 districts where it has exceeded the threshold of 12.5% ​​needed to qualify for the second round including the 67 where he came in first. It is probable that there will be many triangulars or even quadrangular ones, but these multiple candidatures risk dividing the left as well as the right. 

It is however a motive for energizing the Insoumis especially if the rate of abstentions, white or null votes is important. Abstentions, white or null votes, form  of resistance, of hope. They will not be counted for the election but will be examined closely and will weigh in the mobilization. 

Hope now is in a refounding of the left around France Insoumise and a group of deputies as extensive as possible. This is what the results of Jean-Luc Mélenchon in the first round of the presidential allows hope … 

Knowing that this will not be enough. And it will take other mobilizations. But it is the first glimmer in Europe for an opposition, not nationalist but for a change of economic and social orientation. 

1 – Note that these Insoumis did not follow Jean-Luc Mélenchon who will vote on Sunday and wants to make the vote mandatory.

Second tour et après ?

Europe : dernière issue ?

In English below

Europe : dernière issue ?

Europe : dernière issue ?

Europe : dernière issue ?

Les questions européennes ont rarement été aussi présentes dans une élection française, y compris pour le Parlement européen.
Depuis quelque temps, l’Union européenne (UE) est un sujet à chaque élection nationale dans les États membres. Toute élection est devenue un test, un référendum pour ou contre l’appartenance à l’UE.

C’était un murmure, cela devient un grondement tant le mécontentement monte devant la politique suivie par les gouvernements. Et leur persévérance à faire la sourde oreille ne peut qu’accentuer la tendance.
Malgré les résultats aux référendums et élections, ils croient régler le problème en ignorant la volonté populaire. Ils ont raison, à court terme.

Le référendum sur le projet de constitution européenne de 2005 est exemplaire. Ayant perdu le référendum, la nomenclature politique nationale, aidée par la médiatique, a réparé prestement les errements du suffrage universel. Aujourd’hui, 8 candidats sur 11 sont classés eurosceptiques. Deux sont dans le quatuor pouvant parvenir au second tour, d’après les sondages.

Europe : dernière issue ?

Partout, la grogne monte et s’exprime, le plus souvent, à travers un vote favorable à la droite ou à l’extrême droite, raciste ou xénophobe. Ce que démontre une étude sur les résultats de près de 250 élections nationales en 15 ans, depuis 2001, l’extrême droite gagne du terrain. Jusque dans la très vertueuse Scandinavie : en Suède, Parti des Démocrates à 13 % et les Vrais Finlandais à 18 % en 2014 (1).

Au Danemark, le Parti populaire, d’extrême droite, confirme en 2014 et 2015 sa progression. Arrivé en tête avec 26,6 % (4 sièges au lieu de 2), lors des élections européennes de 2014, il arrive en deuxième place, aux élections législatives de 2015, avec plus de 21 % des voix et 37 sièges (+15), devenant pour la première fois, la principale force politique du bloc des droites.

Les résultats des dernières élections en Europe témoignent de la distance entre l’opinion populaire et les gouvernants qui l’ignorent. L’aveuglement de Cameron au Royaume-Uni est démonstratif. Le référendum qu’il a, malicieusement, suscité l’a éliminé en juin 2016.

Lors de la dernière présidentielle, autrichienne, en décembre 2016, l’élection du candidat vert a été célébrée comme une grande victoire parce que le jeune (45 ans) candidat d’extrême droite (FPÖ) n’avait obtenu que 46,4 % des suffrages !

Aux Pays-Bas, en mars 2017, le parti pour la liberté, PVV, de Geert Wilders, n’a pas obtenu les résultats que la presse annonçait. Il a seulement progressé de 15 à 20 sièges, devenant le deuxième parti au Parlement. Le parti libéral, VVD, du premier ministre, Mark Rutte, a perdu 8 sièges (33 au lieu de 41) et son allié le PvDA, 29 sièges (9 au lieu de 38). Il passe de la deuxième à la septième place au Parlement !
Mais la peur a été si grande que la presse transforme en un succès cette humiliante défaite, les partis gouvernementaux chutent de 79 à 42 sièges !
Les autres bénéficiaires du scrutin sont des partis ne participant pas au gouvernement.

Les eurocrates sont satisfait. La majorité n’a pas encore basculé. Aucune raison de changer de politique…

Mais les angoisses reviennent : des élections auront lieu dans les mois qui viennent : présidentielle et législatives en France, régionales en Allemagne au Schleswig-Holstein et en Rhénanie-du-nord-Westphalie en mai, législatives au Royaume-Uni, en juin, législatives en septembre en Allemagne et en Tchéquie, en octobre. Toutes ces élections vont peser, de façon différente, sur l’avenir de l’UE.

Europe : dernière issue ?

Dans l’actuelle élection présidentielle en France, 4 candidats qui ont des lignes politiques différentes, recueilleraient, chacun, autour de 20 % des suffrages.
Emmanuel Macron, souverainiste européen, ancien ministre de l’Économie du président Hollande et François Fillon, partisan d’une Europe intergouvernementale, ancien premier ministre du président Sarkozy. Et deux candidats, classés, Europe-sceptiques, l’une de droite, Marine Le Pen, et l’autre de gauche, Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

Cette configuration à 4 candidats, ayant à peu près autant de chances d’arriver au second tour et d’être éventuellement élus, si l’on en croit les sondages, n’est pas banale. Les choses sont habituellement plus simples : un candidat de gauche, l’autre de droite ou un européiste, face à un Europe-sceptique.

Les favoris des chancelleries sont Emmanuel Macon et François Fillon. Tous deux favorables à la politique du pacte de Deauville de 2010, c’est à dire à l’application énergique des Traités notamment au point de vue budgétaire, déficit public inférieur à 3 %, convergence, harmonisation des fiscalités…
Avec des nuances dans la gouvernance de la zone euro qui pourrait nécessiter un nouveau traité : ministre de l’Économie et des Finances de la zone euro, sous le contrôle d’un parlement de la zone euro, constitué de parlementaires européens des différents États (E.Macron), tropisme positif pour l’énergie nucléaire civile et militaire, et pour la Russie (Fr.Fillon)… Mais avec patience et souplesse, et nos ministres n’en manquent pas, les problèmes pourraient se résoudre ou rester en l’état…

L’élection de Marine Le Pen poserait d’autres problèmes. Car son programme comporte la reconquête de la souveraineté notamment monétaire, avec le retour à une monnaie nationale tout en maintenant l’euro comme monnaie commune. Marine Le Pen veut mener à bien des négociations en 6 mois – il est prévu 2 ans pour le Brexit – suivi d’un référendum…
Cette séparation sur une base d’indépendance nationale est une éventualité à laquelle l’UE devrait s’être préparée car c’est la question qui est soulevée par le Brexit, et dans de nombreux pays. L’organisation européenne est riche en compromis de tous genres sur toutes les questions… sur toutes les exceptions…

La question posée par Jean-Luc Mélenchon n’est pas dans le même registre. Il ne veut pas sortir de l’UE. Il veut abolir ou, au moins, modifier la politique socio-économique, austéritaire de l’Union. Ce qui ne peut se faire sans modification des traités. Il n’avance la sortie de l’Union que comme menace, pour dire qu’il ne fera pas comme Alexis Tsypras ou François Hollande, qu’il ne cédera pas au premier froncement de sourcil…
Les cartes sont sur la table. Plan A, plan B ? En sachant que la sortie de la France, que ce soit pour des raisons nationalistes ou des désaccords sur la politique socio-économique, sonnerait la fin de l’UE telle qu’elle s’est construite jusqu’ici.Les termes de la négociation sont connus de tous. Il est évident que s’il y a négociation, cela veut dire que tout n’est pas à prendre ou à laisser. Que l’issue de la négociation dépendra du rapport de force qui s’établira au lendemain de l’élection. De la fermeté des négociateurs. Des alliés éventuels. De la mobilisation des opinions publiques dans les différents pays.
La Grèce a été bien seule dans son bras de fer avec la Troïka. Les gouvernements de l’UE n’ont pas bougé. Et les opinions publiques si peu. Il n’existe pas d’espace public européen. Pourrait-il apparaître à cette occasion ? Que le tout sera entériné par référendum.

Europe : dernière issue ?

L’arrivée de Mélenchon au second tour, ou son élection, sont peut-être moins dangereuses que l’élection de M. Macron ou de Fr. Fillon. Celle-ci risque d’encourager la nonchalance des gouvernements européens dans leurs certitudes avec, à terme, le risque d’explosion de l’UE dans des circonstances imprévisibles. Une explosion des nationalismes serait catastrophique.

Une négociation avec J-L. Mélenchon, soutenu par l’opinion publique et plusieurs gouvernements, pourrait aboutir à une évolution de l’esprit des traités et à des politiques qui mettraient l’UE sur une autre voie et amélioreraient la situation des plus défavorisés.

C’est peut-être la seule solution pour l’Union européenne de ne pas sombrer.

1 –

Europe : dernière issue ?
Europe: the last issue?

European questions have rarely been as present in a French election, including for the European Parliament.
For some time, the European Union (EU) has been a subject at every national election in the Member States. Any election has become a test, a referendum for or against membership of the EU.

It was a murmur, it became a rumble, so much did the discontent rise to the policy followed by the governments. And their perseverance in turning a deaf ear can only accentuate the trend.
Despite the results in the referendums and elections, they believe they solve the problem by ignoring the popular will. They are right, in the short term.

The referendum on the draft European Constitution of 2005 is exemplary. Having lost the referendum, the national political nomenclature, aided by the media, quickly repaired the mistakes of universal suffrage. Today, 8 out of 11 candidates are Eurosceptic. Two are in the quartet that can reach the second round, according to the polls.

Everywhere, the grumbling rises and expresses itself, most often, through a vote favorable to the right or extreme right, racist or xenophobic. What a study shows on the results of nearly 250 national elections in 15 years, since 2001, the far right is gaining ground. Even in the very virtuous Scandinavia: in Sweden, the Democratic Party at 13% and the True Finns at 18% in 2014 (1).

In Denmark, the Popular Party, far-right, confirms its progress in 2014 and 2015. In the European elections of 2014, it came second in the 2015 legislative elections with more than 21% of the vote and 37 seats (+15), with 26.6% (4 seats instead of 2) , Becoming for the first time the main political force of the bloc of rights.

The results of the last elections in Europe testify to the distance between popular opinion and the rulers who are unaware of it. The blindness of Cameron in the United Kingdom is demonstrative. The referendum which he maliciously raised, eliminated him in June 2016.

At the last Austrian presidential election in December 2016, the election of the green candidate was celebrated as a great victory because the young (45) candidate of extreme right (FPÖ) had obtained only 46.4% Of the votes!

In the Netherlands, in March 2017, the Freedom Party, PVV, by Geert Wilders, did not achieve the results announced by the press. It only grew from 15 to 20 seats, becoming the second party in Parliament. The Liberal party, VVD, of the Prime Minister, Mark Rutte, lost 8 seats (33 instead of 41) and his ally the PvDA, 29 seats (9 instead of 38). It goes from the second to the seventh place in Parliament!
But the fear was so great that the press transformed this humiliating defeat into a success, the government parties fell from 79 to 42 seats!
The other beneficiaries of the ballot are parties not participating in the government.

The Eurocrats are satisfied. The majority has not yet changed. No reason to change policy ...
In the current presidential election in France, 4 candidates who have different political lines, would each collect around 20% of the vote.
Emmanuel Macron, European sovereignist, former Minister of Economy of President Hollande and François Fillon, an advocate of an intergovernmental Europe, former prime minister of President Sarkozy. And two candidates, ranked, Europe-skeptical, one right, Marine Le Pen, and the other left, Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

This configuration with 4 candidates, having almost as much chance of reaching the second round and possibly being elected, according to polls, is not trivial. Things are usually simpler: a left-wing candidate, a right-wing candidate or a Europeanist, facing a Europe-skeptic.

The favorites of the chancelleries are Emmanuel Macon and François Fillon. Both are in favor of the 2010 Deauville pact policy, ie the energetic application of the Treaties in particular from a budgetary point of view, public deficit below 3%, convergence, harmonization of taxation ...
With nuances in the governance of the euro area, which could require a new treaty: the euro zone's minister of economy and finance, under the supervision of a euro-zone parliament, made up of European parliamentarians from different E.Macron), a positive tropism for civilian and military nuclear energy, and for Russia (Fr. Fillon) ... But with patience and flexibility, and our ministers do not lack, the problems could be solved or 'state…

The election of Marine Le Pen would pose other problems. Its program involves the reconquest of monetary sovereignty, with the return to a national currency while maintaining the euro as a common currency. Marine Le Pen wants to carry out negotiations in 6 months - it is expected 2 years for the Brexit - followed by a referendum ...
This separation on a basis of national independence is a possibility that the EU should have prepared for as this is the issue raised by the Brexit and in many countries. The European organization is rich in compromises of all kinds on all questions ... on all exceptions .
But the anguish is back: elections will be held in the coming months: presidential and legislative in France, regional in Germany in Schleswig-Holstein and in North Rhine-Westphalia in May, legislative in the United Kingdom in June, legislative In September in Germany and the Czech Republic in October. The elections will be held in the coming months: presidential and legislative elections in France, regional elections in Germany in Schleswig-Holstein and the Rhineland North-Westphalia in May, legislative elections in the United Kingdom in June, legislative elections in September in Germany and the Czech Republic in October. All these elections will have a different impact on the future of the EU.

Gouvernement : dérèglement climatique ou politique

Delphine Batho a été licenciée à la suite de déclarations contestant la diminution du budget du ministère de l’Écologie, du Développement durable et de l’Énergie 12 mois après sa nomination. Cette conseillère de Ségolène Royal lors de sa candidature à la présidence de la République en 2007 et porte parole du candidat François Hollande en 2012, succédait à Nicole Bricq, conseillère de Ségolène Royal au ministère de l’Écologie en 1992-93 qui n’avait tenu qu’un mois au même ministère.

Cette agitation gouvernementale pourrait faire penser que François Hollande connaît quelques difficultés avec les femmes ministres.
A moins, comme le disent les EELV que ce ne soit avec l’écologie, ou comme l’a précisé Delphine Batho avec les groupes de pression. Nicole Bricq avait changé d’attribution ministérielle quelques jours après sa décision de suspendre tous les permis de forages exploratoires d’hydrocarbures au large de la Guyanne. Elle souhaitait protéger « la faune marine et de l’environnement », éviter le recours à la technique très polluante des boues à l’huile, et elle dénonçait un code minier « inadapté et obsolète » ainsi que le « permis exclusif de recherches à un consortium privé sans contrepartie suffisante pour l’intérêt national ».

Le Monde avait attribué cette mutation aux pressions de l’Union française des industries pétrolières, des entreprises Shell et Totall, ainsi que de Laurence Parisot alors présidente du Medef qui avaient appelé directement le Premier ministre et le président de la République.

Le départ de Nicole Bricq avait été relativement discret, il n’en est pas de même de celui de Delphine Batho. Elle a d’abord qualifié de « mauvais » le budget 2014 de son ministère, ce qui lui a valu d’être « démissionnee ». Elle a ensuite parlé de sa « déception à l’égard du gouvernement » et du « tournant de la rigueur qui ne dit pas son nom et qui prépare la marche au pouvoir de l’extrême droite ».

Sur les questions écologiques, elle a été plus précise. Elle a mis en doute la volonté du gouvernement « de mener à bien la transition énergétique » et affirmé : « Certaines puissances économiques n’acceptaient pas le niveau d’ambition que je fixais pour la transition énergétique », notamment sur la question du gaz de schiste et la réduction de la part du nucléaire en France. « Ces forces ne se sont pas cachées de vouloir ma tête, mais si le gouvernement avait été solidaire, elles n’y seraient pas parvenues« . « C’est sur l’écologie que se concentre l’affrontement avec le monde de la finance et la politique d’austérité« .

Delphine Batho est plus qu une lanceuse d’alerte, c’est une lanceuse de torpilles !

Qui plus est, elle met directement en cause le PDG de Vallourec et même son épouse directrice de cabinet de François Hollande. Personne, dans la majorité ou dans l’opposition ou dans les médias, n’avait soulevé ce possible conflit d’intérêt !

Le changement d’attribution de Nicole Bricq et le limogeage de Delphine Batho traduisent un malaise qui dépasse largement la déception populaire, les imprécations de la Gauche de gauche ou la valse hésitation de EELV et même les différentes fractions de la gauche du PS pour atteindre les membres du gouvernement sur les questions écologiques et zu delà. L’alerte ne vient pas de EELV, « retiens moi ou je vais faire un malheur »… Mais de 2 ministres de l’écologie socialistes qui mettent en évidence la sensibilité de François Hollande aux « pressions amicales » des groupes de pression industriels.
La nomination d’un troisième ministre de l’écologie en 13 mois, homme cette fois, va-t-elle changer les choses ? Il est impensable que Philippe Martin, réputé écologiste sincère, se soit embarqué, dans cette aventure sans avoir l’assurance, au plus haut niveau, que des décisions spectaculaires vont être prises à la rentrée : « un été de la Saint Martin » écologique ?

De cette histoire, encore une fois mal gérée par François Hollande, EELV pourrait tirer bénéfice d’une ou plusieurs décisions rendues indispensables par les démissions en série de ministres socialistes.

Il ne fait pas de doute qu’ils sont actuellement en situation de faire pression. Les ministres EELV, n’ont obtenu, à ce jour, aucun arbitrage décisif sur les points importants qui justifieraient leur présence au gouvernement. Ils arborent en permanence une menace de démission, arme à un seul coup, toujours ajournée par la volonté de rester au gouvernement jusqu’à l’adoption d’une loi « Duflot » sur le logement.
Leur démission serait catastrophique, aujourd’hui, pour l’image du gouvernement.

Les ministres EELV pourraient même, à la fois, se flatter d’un succès qui ne serait pas le leur et démissionner pour protester contre l’insuffisance de ces premières mesures écologiques.