New Anti-Capitalist Party: Coup de Force?
Here We Go!
The ex-LCR Unir tendency has all but been eliminated from positions of influence inside the New Anti-Capitalist Party (NPA) – not by democratic debate but by bureaucratic manoeuvres (here). Present at the NPA’s founding Congress, the current played an important part in the former LCR for many years. Its best known member is Christian Picquet. Clashes with the majority have been accelerating since the 2007 Presidential Campaign , during which UNIR supporters tended to back a ‘unitary’ left candidate (from the anti-liberal collectives that campaigned for a Non vote to the European Constitutional Treaty). The complex history of the various initiatives (pre-Presidentials) behind this is given here. and (in English) here.
This time they represented a Congress motion as the sensibilité européenne. Their delegates argued for an agreement with other left groups (PCF, PG, and a host of republican, Left and ecological groups) to stand as the Left Front in this year’s European Elections. Their platform of alliances with those opposed to the Lisbon Treaty and neo-liberalism, was however strongly rejected by the Conference: it would have involved compromises with left parties that work with the Parti Socialiste – denounced as ’social liberal’.
The Nouvel Observateur reports that the official membership if the NPA is 9.100 adhérents (against 3.200 in the LCR) of which 35 % are women. That of 192 members of the NPA National Committee (the Conseil politique national , CPN) , nearly half (45%) are from the LCR and that there is near equality of male-female representation
The existence of a radical left alternative to the French Parti Socialiste is welcome. One should not exaggerate any minor negative aspects of a new party. If there is a trend to be proud of the achievement and not too willing to listen to critics, this is inevitable if a strong identity and structure are to be created. Still, a certain amount of unnecessary bullying appears to be creeping in. An ultra-minority group, the CRI were hustled off the platform by security guards. Much more significantly only 13 (out of 192) members of the CPN are from the pro-Left Front tendency, which however had received 16% of the vote for its motion.
No doubt the Weekly Worker,which is full of interesting detail about such groups as the CRI, will fill in the facts about them, and others of a similar kind. For others it’s the rejection of the Unitary Minority which is of most importance.
The Nouvel Observateur carries in its latest print edition four pages on the Nouveau Parti Anti-Capitaliste. It mentions the wide, and deserved, popularity of Olivier Besancenot. Picquet (who is attacked by NPA members for ‘washing our dirty linen in public) suggests that an “illusion” has gained a hold over the organisation: that Besancenot’s high opinion poll ratings mean that the NPA will expand rapidly. There dangers indeed standout: over- personalising the party around Olivier’s charisma, a fog around the NPA’s – public- ideological foundations – a mesh of Trotskyism, anti-capitalism, ‘alter’-globalisation, and the rest (I repeat this: why all the references to Che? Is Monmartre’s Vineyard about to become a basis for rural guerrilla warfare?). In reality I have no doubt that LCR-Trotskyism will be the pierre angulaire of the NPA. But the basis of membership is loose enough, and one could see the kind of confusion prevalent in Social Forum movements – such as the harmless cranks of the UK’s own version. Finally, that intolerance of opposition is always the easiest way on the leftto hide political difficulties, and the easiest way to leave a bitter taste in the mouth.
Meanwhile France prepares for another General Strike in March.
It was always my impression in the last 12 years, that Unir & their predecessors (the LCR majority up to 1999) were preoccupied with running in elections together with “la gauche de la gauche gouvernementale” and were not really keen on building a revolutionary party but were in the long term trying to dissolve the LCR into a left green/left social democratic party … and it is my experience, they the often were not interested in their comrades in other countries when they were not involved in that kind of “alliances”, instead, they preferred to have privileged relationships with MPs and leftist celebrities elsewhere, the strong position of Picquet and his friends in international bodies of the FI e.g. lead to neglecting contacts with (mostly small and youthfull) groups and organizations in Eastern Europe who were interested in joining the International after 1989 in favor of holding conferences and meetings with academics and polititians
entdinglichung
February 10, 2009 at 4:02 pm
That’s totally wrong what you say. It’s the version of Unir. I was delegate and I was shocked by their strategy at the congress.
I suppose that you are against the anticapitalist, that you prefer those who are not clear about there relationship with the PS. I must say to everybody that if you want to know about what is really the NPA don’t read the nouvel observateur, l’humanite (who hate litteraly the NPA like the old stalinists hate the trotskysts) or the analysis of the socialist party that considers that the NPA (and not the PG or Melenchon, strange isn’t it ?) is a threat to its hegemony, go to http://www.npa2009.org.
I don’t speak english very well but I have to say as a delegate that Unir try to manipulate the delegates even those who vote for “the front de gauche”.
The best proof is that at the begining of the congress 104 delegates vote for their strategy. But when they try at the end of the congress to make a “coup de force” only 54 (among 650 delegate) were with them. So 13 among 190 it’s not illegitimate.
One thing is certain, this congress was very democratic. The proposition of Unir was rejected by the vote of the delegate. And another proposition to garantee 13 members and not 5 was voted by the delegates.
And the NPA decide to defend a “front de gauche” but a front de gauche radically independant from the PS, one thing that the PG and the Communist Party refuse.
We do not want to do as Rifondazione in Italy or Die Linke in Berlin.
In french, for those who read french:
Il faut remettre les choses à l’endroit.
Il y eu une commission pluraliste où ils étaient présents qui a discuté pendant des heures pour concilier réprésentation LCR et non-LCR, parité H-F, représentation des clivages politiques (front de gauche mais aussi écosocialisme par exemple) et j’en passe.
Il faut comprendre que les clivages n’étaient pas uniquement sur la question européenne. La répartition tentait de prendre en compte différents clivages sachant que comme il n’y avait pas de textes contradictoires, la proportionnelle par définition ne pouvait être appliquée pleinement pour l’ensemble des clivages, sachant qu’en plus ces clivages ne se recoupaient pas forcément.
Cette commission 3/4 d’heures avant la fin du congrès alors que la plupart des délégués de province devaient prendre leur train présente au vote la liste et Unir à la surprise générale (présent pourtant à la commission) sort alors de son chapeau une liste de 26 noms sur la base des 16% qu’auraient obtenu la motion qui appelait à se rallier aux positions du PG et du PCF.
Il y a eu un véritable tollé dans la salle devant cette manipulation, ce coups de force antidémocratique qui mettaient les délégués devant un sacré dilemne sans discussion possible faute de temps ce que Unir ne pouvait ignorer.
Du coups cette proposition a été présentée au vote malgré tout et Unir n’a même pas été soutenu par les 104 délégués sur 650 qui avaient voté leur orientation.
Il n’y avait que 54 délégués (le noyau dur du courant unir, pour l’essentiel des ex-lcr) qui les ont soutenu, les autres outrés par leur manipulation, ont voté contre parce qu’ils refusaient d’être pris en otage alors même qu’ils étaient d’accord politiquement.
La tribune a proposé alors un compromis, elle a proposé à Unir de se constituer en plateforme, et donc sur la base des votes obtenus de faire élire les représentants qu’ils veulent à la direction. Unir a refusé (pourquoi ? Ont-ils eu peur que ce vote révèle leur représentativité réelle, moins de 10% ?) préférant une deuxième proposition de compromis, 13 représentants au lieux des 26 sur la base des membres de ce courant qui avaient déposé leur candidature dans les comités locaux comme tout candidat devait le faire. Les dirigeants d’Unir ayant pour la plupart refusé de le faire, ils n’y sont pas mais ils sont tout de même représentés par 13 personnes et les délégués ont voté sur ce point et ont majoritairement y compris ceux très majoritaires qui refusaient la ligne d’Unir accepté de faire passer de 5 à 13 les représentants à la direction.
Tout le processus décisionnel a donc été voté. Aucune décision n’a été prise par la tribune sans validation démocratique par les délégués.
On peut donc critiquer si on veut le bien-fondé de ces décisions, mais on ne peut pas critiquer le fait qu’elles aient été pleinement démocratiques.
Certains vont préférer la version d’Unir. Qu’ils aient au moins l’honnêteté eux qui n’étaient pas là de confronter les différentes versions.
Par ailleurs, ce n’est pas à moi de définir la stratégie d’Unir mais je suis convaincu qu’ils pourraient défendre plus efficacement leurs positions en respectant les règles de fonctionnement démocratiques du NPA et surtout en étant pleinement acteurs du processus, la plupart des dirigeants ayant purement et simplement refusé de construire le NPA.
Ce qui est le droit le plus strict, mais qu’ils ne s’étonnent pas après de ne plus être crédibles auprès de cuex qui l’ont construit, y compris parmi ceux qui sont sur le fond d’accord avec eux.
langue rouge
February 11, 2009 at 10:16 am
Je pense qu’il est tout à fait légitime de défendre le NPA. Quand je vois (j’en a vu beaucoup) les vidéos de Congrès je suis très ému, car ce sont mes camarades – je les aime bien (depuis plus que trente ans d’ailliers) – et on peut prèsque sentir l’émotion dans la salle.
I ‘welcomed’ the NPA’s creation, as a radical force, a means of mobilising and pressure (though I have doubts about its ‘revolutionary’ strategy). We have had some very bad experiences in the UK with new parties (c’est le moins qu’on puisse dire), and alternative efforts, with a much wider social basis, such as the NPA, are of great interest to us here. As I say, it is engaged in real politics, not Big Brother.
That I have reported and commented on critics, like Unir, is a result of the fact that were I now active in France I would prefer it to have an accord with the NPA and PCF, and a more informal connections with what remains of the PS left. This is on the principles that, firstly I sympathise with the ideological current of Unir (having a similar views on very radical republican socialism, in my case ‘Pabloite’ self-managed republicanism), and secondly, I would like to see the French left-of-the-PS elected, in this instance to the European Parliament. It strikes me that that without an agreement with the Left Front (Front de Gauche) this will not happen. Obviously Enty, and Red, I am wary of the prospect of alliance with the ‘Responsible left’ when they shore up (consolider) the position of Aubry etc. But what is so wrong with Die Linke, when it is itself internally a coalition between left social demcorats, and the rest of the left? Why is the NPA determined to be so exclusive?
A major purpose of this Blog, however, is to present a view of European left politics, above all French, from direct sources, not mediated by UK left organisations, many of which emphasise their micro-allies, sub-contractors, and couldn’t care less about, say, the Unir tendency. Obviously I have my biases but I am happy to hear from others with very different accounts. Very happy.
Andrew Coates
February 11, 2009 at 11:51 am
If you want to know what happened at the congress with Unir, you just have to watch this video : http://www.npa2009.org/content/le-d%C3%A9bat-et-les-votes-concernant-l%C3%A9lection-de-la-direction-du-npa-cpn
This is democracy ! And this is the NPA !
langue rouge
February 11, 2009 at 3:45 pm
It’s one thing, Andrew, to say that you support the general political orientation of Unir. Fine. But to relay accusations of “bureaucratic manoeuvres” strikes me as inflammatory and irresponsible. You don’t appear merely to be “reporting and commenting” on the accusations of Unir, but actually endorsing them for the simple reason that you are politically allied with them in some way. This is precisely the kind of factional behaviour the NPA hopes to leave behind.
I was present for the dissolution of the LCR and the first two days of the NPA founding congress. As a former supporter of the “Picquet” current when I was an LCR member in the 1990s, I have to say that I was very angry and disappointed with the behaviour of the Unir comrades. They appear to be importing into the NPA the worst traditions of factionalism that plagued the LCR (even if rather less so than they have plagued other organizations of Trotskyist origin).
I’m glad there are people like langue rouge around — not to mention the NPA’s extreme transparency, including video streams of the Congress itself — to set the record straight. But I hope we don’t waste too much time and energy on red herrings like this!
Nathan
February 11, 2009 at 4:07 pm
Fine: factionalism is something bad (especially, I observe, this position is often taken by those in opposing factions, above all majority ones).
Nevertheless, the point is, is the following claim by Unir true or not?
“Les statuts fraîchement adoptés par le congrès, qui prévoient la représentation proportionnelle des positions qui ont été opposées dans un débat central au sein du NPA, ont ainsi été bafoués. Ce qui a permis d’éliminer, sans autre forme de procès, quatre des six membres sortants du comité d’animation national provisoire du NPA (Alain Faradji, Catherine Jouanneau, Christian Picquet et Francis Sitel), ainsi que neuf autres candidats, dont beaucoup n’appartenaient pas à l’ex-LCR.” At: http://www.unir.asso.fr/2009/02/09/congres-du-npa-logique-de-repli-et-coup-de-force/
The rules, just now adopted by the Conference, which laid down that proportional representation would be applied to those who were in opposition during a central Congress debate, have been swept aside. Which has permitted the elimination, without any form of examination, 6 members of the Provisional Comité d’animation of the NPA (Organising Committee), Alain Faradji, Catherine Jouanneau, Christian Picquet et Francis Sitel, as well as 9 other candidates, amongst whom many have not been members of the LCR.
Just to underline, my link with Unir is purely one of ideological (relative) closeness. If reproducing their claims is factionalism, then so be it.
Andrew Coates
February 12, 2009 at 11:07 am
Hmmmm. You unreservedly relay and endorse the accusations of Unir. Langue rouge and I are trying to answer the accusations. And that makes us factional? Would it be better if we just let the charges of anti-democratic “bureaucratic manoeuvres” go without comment?
Unir comes up with the figure of people (15? 13?) who have been presumably “swept aside”. But where does this come from? It comes from a figure they created at the last minute just as the congress was deliberating on the nomination commission’s proposal for the new leadership.
They wanted “proportional” representation based on one congress vote — the one on the position to take in the European elections. But delegates participating in that vote had no inkling that this vote on a specific and difficult short-term political question was going to be a vote on the representation of one specific grouping on the new leadership. Delegates voted on many questions at the congress, with positions and sensibilities overlapping and diverging all over the place. Indeed, when (as you can see in the video link posted by langue rouge) delegates learned of Unir’s proposal, they voted by a huge majority (and many quite indignantly) to reject it.
Putting together the new leadership — the first in the life of the new party — was a long and complicated process. Many considerations had to be factored into the process — sectors of activism, geography, different groupings that joined the founding process, not to mention gender parity.
And, to top it off, there was a specific procedure laid out for candidacies to the new leadership. Nominations were submitted and discussed in the local new-party committees and then sent to the national nominations commission; or at least individually sent to the national commission before the congress or, very minimally, submitted to the nominations commission during the congress itself!
Unir did none of this, choosing to magically produce its demand for 26 leadership positions at the last minute. As langue rouge has explained, in the face of this disgraceful performance, the feeling among most delegates actually leaned towards giving Unir far fewer positions than the 13 they got. But the nominations commission wanted to explicitly err on the side of caution, and only excluded those people from the “list of 26″ whose names had at no point been submitted to a local new-party committee or to the pre-congres or congress deliberations of the national nominations commission.
As I said before, as someone who had a political-ideological affinity with the Unir comrades in the past, I have been extremely put off by their behaviour throughout the whole NPA process and the period leading up to it. Many of them — especially Picquet himself, who has become the main contact of lazy mainstream journalists looking to muckrake on NPA and Besancenot — have for all intents and purposes boycotted the process. And then they turn around and demand strong representation as a current on the new leadership? And when this operation fails, they play the martyr, victims of “bureaucratic manoeuvres”?
It’s all a bit much, really. Of course, it doesn’t convince anyone actually involved in the process. But it certainly feeds cynicism and the hostility that is building within certain “left” circles against the new party.
Nathan
February 12, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Since I know quite a lot about the atmosphere created during the last French Presidentials on the left, that is relating to the Bove candidature, hostility is surely hardly a surprise.
In any case the comments Langue Rouge have written leaves anyone who cares to read this site (over 300 on the first Day this Post went up),free to make up their own mind.
Perhaps you are forgetting the context for us here is the whole collapse of the attempts to build alternative left aprties in this country. Though this should be common knowledge to you – I assume Nathan that you have links with Socialist Resistance. That is, for us in England, the experience of Respect. Hence we are always rather more than sceptical about these initiatives.
I have written on this in the journal Chartist,
reproduced here: http://tendancecoatesy.wordpress.com/?s=Respect%3A+the+End
Andrew Coates
February 12, 2009 at 2:57 pm
I am not in Britain and have never lived there or been a member of any organization in that country. I have already said that I was a member of the LCR in France in the 1990s, and close to the Picquet tendency during much of that time. But this isn’t about me.
Yes, let your blog readers form their own opinion based on the exchange here and whatever they may read elsewhere.
I only hope Unir’s accusations are examined on their merits, and not through the factional prism of the micro-tendency one belongs to or whatever context may exist for the radical Left in Britain or anywhere else.
Unir has made specific charges in relation to the specific process of the founding of the NPA and the selection of its new leadership.
While I congratulate you for being disarmingly honest about your approach to this, it’s still very discouraging that you have been unwilling to look at the actual details of this “case”, invoking “political-ideological” considerations and “context” (which I just see as code words for a factional outlook).
Don’t you think you should be a little more careful about supporting accusations as serious as the ones made by the Unir comrades? What would have happened if langue rouge and I hadn’t chanced upon your blog, which I knew nothing about until I came across this post relaying Unir’s poisonous accusations?
Nathan
February 12, 2009 at 3:38 pm
It is not essentially a matter of a’factional’ outlook. The NPA is being promoted as a model: I have doubts about this. I express them. I write for a variety of left journals in the UK, and do not have a ‘faction’. Probably the nearest would be soemthing like the ‘Federation’ in France: we call ourselves the Independent Left.
If you prefer not to get annoyed than you can read Socialist Worker, which reports the NPA conference as one immense boost for the left, or if you want a much more detailed factional account see the Weekly Worker.
Quoi qu’il en soit, the choice of the expression ‘poisonous accusations’ does not bespeak a healthy disgreement. We all know which animal is full of poison. I observe that there are plenty of much more serious ‘allegations’ in politics: to cite but one, the dispute over the PS’s new General Secretary. It strikes me as out of balance to start slinging mud against Unir on the basis of their claims, which for ther part do not relate to allegations of fraud (as was the case in the Parti Socialiste).
Furthermore it seems to me that the Unir group are made up of some pretty serious people. Not to be dismissed lightly.
Andrew Coates
February 12, 2009 at 4:08 pm
Of course, they are not to be dismissed lightly. I even supported them for a number of years. They are intelligent and competent people, like a lot of other folks out there. But next time it would be nice if you refrained from publicly endorsing their accusations against the NPA without examining the actual merits of the case they present.
Best wishes, and thanks for the reference to Goldacre in your latest post. I’ll check out his book.
Nathan
February 12, 2009 at 7:22 pm