Joy throughout Europe; tantrums in the mainstream press
Whatever thoughts I might have had that British and European newspapers were capable of reporting the news in a balanced manner - at least by contrast to American or Australian newspapers - flew out the window the moment the French people decisively rejected the EU constitution by a decisive majority. In the 48 hours during which the referendum result was reported and analysed, I checked around 20 different media outlets to find out how the French decision was being explained. The earliest coverage was, with a handful of exceptions, extremely biased. Anyone would think that the French had just voted to introduce suttee, legalize infanticide or something equally unforgivable.*
Although there is probably no election or referendum in recent history - in Europe, the U.S. or anywhere else - in which the voters so obviously went to great lengths to be well-informed about the matter at issue, it was very hard to find a single report that credited the French public for having considered the EU constitution carefully and made a wise and prudent decision as to its merits. The discourse about the referendum result was pervaded by the view that the French somehow owed it to the rest of Europe to consent to a constitution that most everyone admitted would only undermine their privileged lifestyle.
That the French do enjoy a privileged lifestyle was conceded by many of the pro-constitution commentators. Jody K. Biehl of Der Spiegel, one of the most biased commentators of all, wrote, 'anyone who has spent time in France knows, the lifestyle ... is stunningly good.' David Ignatius of the Washington Post wrote, 'Living in France for four years, I came to appreciate what a wonderful country it is, with a quality of life that is truly the envy or the world.' Nor is there any reason to doubt that the French lifestyle is 'stunningly good,' especially in comparison to the grim conditions that prevail in neoliberal England. In the context of the growing British diaspora in France (and, to a lesser extent, Spain), a host of English writers, including Phil Daoust and Alexander Chancellor, have written eloquently in praise of the superior quality of life in France. By what kind of twisted logic are the French to be faulted for objecting to a constitution which would have only undermined their 'stunningly good' lifestyle and placed them on the fast track to the kind of lifestyle Daoust and Chancellor depict with entirely appropriate distaste?
Even if you disagree with the referendum result, the French people deserve credit for having purchased copies the constitution in huge quantities and with often having waded through the better part of what is generally conceded to have been an horrendous read. Political engagement on this scale would never occur in the U.S. (where hardly anyone in Congress read the Patriot Act before it was passed, let alone ordinary citizens) or Australia.
But instead of receiving credit for their high level of civic participation, a single line emanates from the European and international media with virtual Stalinist unanimity: the French people have made an unspeakably stupid decision. In fact, it is the reporting of the decision that was unspeakably stupid. Der Spiegel's Hans-Jürgen Schlamp, for example, summarised the spirit of the French vote in the word 'negativism' - a contemptuous term irrationally implying that no one should ever vote no to anything.
The extremely biased reporting I am criticising here follows from the overwrought belief that the decision was a disaster which will throw Europe into chaos. There is no basis for such claims. How could a vote over a document which did not even exist two or three years ago precipitate a continent-wide meltdown? After all, the Europeans having lived for many, many years without a common constitution, it is hard to see what difference its rejection could possibly make. Despite titling its section of articles about the referendum "Europe in Crisis", The Independent conceded that the abandonment of the constitution would make scant difference:
What difference will we notice if the constitution does not come into effect?
Very little. The EU has already put into effect the Nice Treaty, which allows for the enlargement that took place last year when 10 new, mainly ex-Communist countries were admitted, and for Romania and Bulgaria to join in 2007. But hopes of streamlining decision-making and making the EU more efficient will be lost.
Crisis, what crisis?
Another unspeakably stupid line of argument was that it is absurd for the French to repudiate a constitution 'they' allegedly framed themselves. Wrote Biehl, 'when it comes down to it, the French were voting on a document they suggested, wrote and from which they ostensibly stood to benefit.' Not for Biehl are such subtle distinctions as that between Valéry Giscard d'Estaing and the French people as a whole. (Could Biehl be operating under the illusion that Giscard d'Estaing is the repository of the general will of the French people?)
Let there be no mistake: the 'non' voters have been treated by the British and European mainstream media with the same ill-tempered contempt that the American media treated the French 'surrender monkeys' for failing to back the neoconservatives' war against Iraq. It is truly amazing how bitterly the French people were attacked for their decision, one which only confirms my belief that democracy is healthier in France (and a number of other European countries) than anywhere else on the planet. The truth is that while there may be much wailing and gnashing of teeth in Brussels and the offices of the central banks and the big corporations, most Europeans are pleased enough. Most French people are positively delighted.
The recent triumph of democracy in France is, however, tarnished by a political class which, quite unashamedly, lapsed into hysterics and abuse at the popular victory. Here is just a small sample of just some of the truly patronizing comments which litter the reportage about the referendum, together with a one-word heading highlighting the theme being used to discredit the French decision. The reader will notice that the referendum result is attributed overwhelmingly to base passions - above all, fear - or old ideas from the past ('nationalism,' 'nostalgia') and an inability to accept change. There is also an attempt to connect the vote with that hoary old cliche, French arrogance - surely a case here of the pot calling the kettle black.
PASSIONS
'Driven by nationalism, xenophobia, by dogmatism or nostalgia, [the no voters] wanted to get rid of a Europe that blotted their horizon, that upset their customs and imposed changes.' - Jean-Marie Colombari of Le Monde.
'It was an outcry of anger, of pain, of fear and desperation that drove the citizens of France to the polls in masses.' Romain Leick of Der Spiegel.
POPULISM
'Sunday's vote ... came at the price of a populist wave which has washed over France like a tsunami.' Romain Leick of Der Spiegel
ARROGANCE
'July [a pro-yes vote French newspaper] rightly points out in his editorial the self-aggrandizing nature of the vote. France proves it "exists because all alone, it is able to unhinge Europe," the sickened editor writes of his nation's hunger to prove its own power. "On your knees, Europe, in face of our no!"' - Jody K. Biehl of Der Spiegel
NOSTALGIA
French politicians are now saddled with 'an electorate which is nostalgically clinging to the old social model in which the state takes care of its citizens.' - Johan Huizinga of Radio Netherlands.
FEAR
France suffers from 'feverish fear of reforms to the social system.' - Romain Leick of Der Spiegel
'Behind all the show, however, lies a deep fear that the good life the French have long known will soon end.' - Jody K. Biehl
'Maybe what happened in France on Sunday was the manifestation of a feeling that has been latent across Europe for a long time: the evaporation of faith in the European model and a renunciation by Europeans of an institution that they no longer see as protective but rather as threatening.' - Jody K. Biehl of Der Spiegel
PROTECTIONISM
French politicians ' need to wake the French [people] from their dream, and tell them honestly: "No, we no longer have the dominant influence we once had in Europe, nor will we get it back. We can't put up a protectionist dam on our own against the neo-liberal world market either.' - Johan Huizinga of Radio Netherlands
TIMIDITY
'Fear of losing all that sweetness has France trembling.' - Jody K. Biehl of Der Spiegel (after conceding that the French enjoy a 'stunningly good' lifestyle!)
'the French have become closet conservatives. As much as they want to be part of a growing, entrepreneurial world, they are not willing to make the sacrifices necessary for 21st century life.' - Jody K. Biehl of Der Spiegel (after conceding that the French enjoy a 'stunningly good' lifestyle!)
Such passages invite many questions. Here are just a few: Since when has preferring a state which takes care of its citizens to the neoliberal alternative been reducible to 'nostalgia'? On what basis does the media determine that, in affirming their support for the current social model, the French people are motivated by 'nostalgia' rather than by, say, enlightened self-interest? On what basis is the status quo described as an 'old' social model? How very 'old', in fact, is the French social model? Since when did a people enjoying a 'stunningly good' lifestyle need to make 'sacrifices'? Who says the 21st century has to be the century in which the 'stunningly good' lifestyle the French currently enjoy has to go down the drain? What good is 'a growing, entrepreneurial world' if it requires the sacrifice of a 'stunningly good' lifestyle? Instead of a constitution threatening the 'stunningly good' lifestyle of the French, how about a constitution that would help other Europeans reach a similar standard of living themselves? Wherefore the intensity of the smear campaign against the French voters? What damage have they really done by deciding that the status quo, whatever its defects may be, is preferable to a new state of affairs which would probably compel them to forfeit their 'stunningly good' lifestyle? What, indeed, is the point of economic life if it is not to allow a people to achieve a 'stunningly good' lifestyle? Why is a vote implying faith in the French social model interpreted as a 'feverish fear of reforms'? Why are the French supposed to favour the 'European model' over their own social model? Why should they be faulted for choosing the one that suits them best?
NB: For the record, there are a number of examples of genuinely insightful commentary. Of these, I would draw attention to the following:
"French Say 'Non' in Thunder!" by Diana Johnstone
"The US Media and the French Referendum" by Patrick Martin (by far the best thing written on the referendum result so far)
"The no vote was a shout of defiance" by Jonathan Steele
*Reporting has subsequently become more balanced. The views described here represent what might be called the first wave of reaction.
