France, Germany and the European Union challenges and responses

 From France to Germany, and across the EU, the risks are enormous and the challenges must be won

Victor Ângelo

France is experiencing a very serious political crisis. The dissolution of the National Assembly, decided on 9 June 2024 by President Emmanuel Macron, was a gamble that surprised the political class and proved to be a mistake. Since then, four prime ministers have already come to power. The latest, Sébastien Lecornu, formed a government on Sunday night and resigned the following morning. An absolute record, which clearly shows the deadlock the country is in.

The political elites are grouped into two extreme camps: Marine Le Pen’s party and a coalition of more or less radical left-wing forces, with Jean-Luc Mélenchon as the leading figure. What little remains, the centre, is fragmented around half a dozen politicians who cannot agree. Several of these personalities, as well as Le Pen and Mélenchon, are convinced they could succeed Macron as head of state. They want Macron to resign from the presidency of the Republic without delay. Officially, his second term should end in May 2027. Now, due to the seriousness of the crisis, even his political allies are saying that the solution to the deadlock would be for the president to leave office early.

I do not believe this will happen. Macron may not want to admit that his popularity is at rock bottom. This week’s poll found that only 14% of the French support his policies. It is a catastrophic percentage. Macron believes, however, that he has the constitutional legitimacy to continue.

In a deep crisis like the current one, and if Macron were to opt again, in the near future, for early parliamentary elections, it is possible that Marine Le Pen’s far-right could win the most seats. Her party appears, to a significant part of the electorate, as more stable than the left, which is a fragile patchwork of various political opinions.

In any case, whether it is early presidential or new parliamentary elections, France is on the verge of falling into the abyss of deep chaos, caught between two ultra-radical poles. This time, the risk is very serious. The most likely outcome is that France, one of the two pillars of the European Union, will be led by a radical, ultranationalist party, hostile to the European project, xenophobic, and ideologically close to Vladimir Putin.

The other pillar of Europe is Germany. Friedrich Merz, chancellor since May, is in constant decline with public opinion. Only 26% of voters believe in his ability to solve the most pressing problems: the cost of living, housing, immigration, and economic stagnation. The German economy contracted in 2023 and 2024, with sectors such as construction and industry falling back to levels of the mid-2000s. The engine of the economy, the automotive industry, is about a third below its peak 15 years ago and has returned to levels close to the mid-2000s, reflecting a loss of competitiveness and profound structural changes in the sector.

In a recent discussion with German analysts, I was told that the unpopularity of Merz and his coalition is paving the way for the far-right to come to power in 2029 or even earlier. This year, the AfD (Alternative for Germany, a party led by Nazi nostalgists) came second, with almost 21% of the vote. The growing discontent of citizens, competition with the Chinese economy, tariffs and restrictions imposed by the Americans, spending on aid to Ukraine, Donald Trump’s blatant support for German right-wing extremists—who sees the AfD as a way to seriously undermine European unity—, the growing propaganda against foreigners living in Germany, all these are factors that reinforce the electoral base of this racist and Nazi-inspired party. Not to mention that the AfD maintains privileged relations with the Kremlin.

The crossroads in which both France, now, and Germany, in the near future, find themselves represent two enormous challenges for the survival of the EU. They are incomparably more worrying than the consequences of Brexit or the sabotage by Hungary’s Viktor Orbán and Slovakia’s Robert Fico. They come at a time when the EU faces a series of existential problems of external origin.

The external enemies are well known. Fear and concessions are the worst responses that can be given to them. Enemies and adversaries must be dealt with with great strategic skill and reinforced unity, only achievable if EU leaders can explain and prove to citizens the importance of European unity and cohesion.

The international scene is much bigger than the USA, Russia, or China. The expansion of agreements with Japan, Canada, Mercosur, the African continent, and ASEAN should be given priority attention. This list does not seek to exclude other partners, it only mentions some that are especially important.

The future also requires resolutely reducing excessive dependence on the outside in the areas of defence, technology, digital platforms, energy, and raw materials essential for the energy transition. Debureaucratising, innovating, and promoting the complementarity of European economies is fundamental. All this must be done while combating extremism. To think that extremists will play by democratic rules once in power is a dangerous illusion. Exposing this fiction is now the urgent priority in France, and the constant priority in all Member States, including Portugal.

The French presidential election

Macron must win

Victor Angelo

 

In the first round of the French presidential election, some 56% of voters voted in a radical way, against the system. Such a result reveals a deep social malaise in a country that is one of the pillars of the EU and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. It is worrying. A closer analysis reinforces our concern - one citizen out of three voted for the extreme right. In other words, they opted for a backward-looking vision of what the France of tomorrow should be, for xenophobic ultranationalism, and for an overbearing leader who considers herself/himself a redeemer of the homeland. And such citizen did it with the uncompromising conviction of those who see the world in black and white, without nuances or respect for ideas different from their own. Radicals are like that.

The first round highlighted, once again, the fragility of democracies. When Donald Trump came to power, it was believed that the threat he personified was very much peculiar to the American institutional system. A similar situation, in Europe, seemed unlikely. Meanwhile, now on April 3, autocrat Viktor Orbán was re-elected, for the third time, as Prime Minister of Hungary. But that fact was more or less swept into a corner, with the excuse that Hungary weighs little in the chess of European relations and that Brussels would know how to respond. This time we have France, a key piece on our chessboard, and Marine Le Pen knocking on the door of the Elysée Palace.

Le Pen has realized over the past five years that you can't catch flies with vinegar. She has moderated her discourse, designed attractive, though unrealistic, social promises, and, above all, bet on empathy, on personal contact with the voters. She has dressed up as a democrat, but she is still, in essence, a dangerous extremist. And, like all extremists, she is incapable of having an overall vision, incapable of interpreting the complexity of the problems, reducing everything to two or three simplistic ideas that serve as a stick for the whole work.

It is a mistake to consider that Orbán or Le Pen, or people with the same political beliefs, are only illiberal democrats. They are, each in their own way, real threats against democracy. Period.

Certain intellectuals like to talk about "liberal democracy". But this is a dull concept, used only to sound erudite. Either there is democracy, without any other qualifiers, but with all that this implies in terms of freedoms, diversity of opinions and separation of powers, or there is not. This is what Hungary is not experiencing today and what may happen in France tomorrow. The same should be said of the exaltation of populist and ethnic nationalism, which is an attack against EU consolidation. These people have a merely opportunistic and mercantile view of the common project. In the case of Le Pen, the measures she proposes would fatally lead to France's exit from the EU if carried out.

In the interests of democracy in France and European unity, it is crucial that Emmanuel Macron wins the election. To think that his victory is a foregone conclusion could lead to defeat. In France, as in other countries, this is a time of uncertainty, frustration, and vulgar criticism from the elites. The televised head-to-head on April 20 will certainly be very important. But it may not be as decisive as the equivalent debate five years ago, when Macron laid bare the ignorance that Le Pen brought with her. It is now necessary to go further. Macron must speak concretely and avoid vague ideas and verbiage. The verbose flow is one of his weaknesses. He, like other politicians I know, confuse loquacity with good communication. This is a mistake. Politics today is done by talking to real people about their problems and their aspirations, about the difficulties of the present and the future with optimism. All this with serenity and a deep human touch. Barack Obama has shown himself to be a master of this art. Let's hope that Macron can do so as well. It is vital to bar Marine Le Pen.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 15 April 2022)

Vladimir Putin's friends

Europe: de-dramatize and fight the deceit

Victor Ângelo

 

Diplomacy has been in a frenzy for the past two weeks. Russian threats were taken seriously and suddenly everyone in Europe and the United States thought it was indispensable to talk to Vladimir Putin and Volodymyr Zelensky. And both have lent themselves to the game. Just a few days ago Viktor Orbán was in Moscow, and Boris Johnson in Kiev. At first sight, a forceful response to the threats triggered a series of diplomatic initiatives. The parties continue to pursue the path of negotiation, even as they acknowledge the lack of progress. This, despite the strengthening of military positions, which has been unrelenting, is positive. The likelihood of a military confrontation has not gone away, and remains very high, but it is no longer the only alternative. 

Nobody has tried to facilitate the contact between the main parties involved. It is important that Putin and Zelensky speak directly to each other. Even bearing in mind that the underlying issue is much bigger than the dispute between Russia and Ukraine. The peaceful resolution of conflicts is always done step by step, like someone solving a puzzle. Starting with the implementation of the Normandy agreement - which aims to restore peace in the rebel-held areas of eastern Ukraine - would be a big step in the right direction.

What is missing is someone who can bridge and mediate between the neighbouring presidents. Unfortunately I don't see, in Europe or in an international organisation, many who can do this. Mediation and conflict prevention are two particularly difficult areas of international relations. I have learned this from decades of practice. They require intermediaries with great moral authority, personal courage, political influence, and a credible structure to back them up. At present, such personalities are rare birds, as organisations and political systems have been taken over by nationalists or else by distinguished errand boys and other opportunists. At this moment, with the exception that Emmanuel Macron may be, Europe is without protagonists capable of projecting themselves beyond their national borders.

Viktor Orbán is also very much stirred up on the European scene, but for purely domestic reasons. Hungary has legislative elections scheduled for 3 April. If there is no fraud - and there is a big if here - Orbán could lose the battle of the popular vote. So, ensuring the seriousness of this electoral act is especially important for those who believe in a democratic Europe. The current Hungarian prime minister is indeed a negative force on the European scene. Meanwhile, and before the Moscow visit, Orbán was in Madrid last weekend to attend a new meeting of the EU's ultraconservative, neo-fascist, and ultranationalist parties.

It was a meeting organised by the Spanish far-right party Vox. The theme was "defending Europe". Interestingly, it was only after much insistence by the Polish prime minister that the participants included in the final communiqué a reference to the current aggressive stance of the Kremlin and the danger this poses to peace in Europe. Yet Marine Le Pen, when she published the communiqué on her personal propaganda website, kindly deleted this reference to Russian moves. She thus proved once again that Putin can count on the benevolence of certain European neo-fascist and xenophobic groups. And on Viktor Orbán, within the EU. And these fellows can expect, reciprocally, his support, money and more gas at the price offered to allies.

Putin can also count on a few commentators who think it is in good taste and progressive thinking to serve as an echo chamber for the propaganda and falsehoods circulated by the Kremlin. In some cases, these are intellectuals who were trained ideologically during the Cold War. For others, it is just a way of trying to show that they are smarter and that they understand the strategy at play better than anyone else. In both cases, although they are not the political relatives of Le Pen or Orbán, in practice they end up doing an identical service.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 4 February 2022)

 

 

 

France matters

Emmanuel Macron's New Year

Victor Angelo

With this first day of the new year, the six-month French presidency of the European Union begins. Is it the time to make vows of renewal or to expect more of the same? For Emmanuel Macron, this should be an exceptional period, in many ways. In the coming months, two of his great ambitions will be at stake: being re-elected president of the French Republic and shaping the future of the European Union. For the moment, neither is guaranteed.

The easiest to achieve will perhaps be his re-election. There may be eight candidates in the presidential race, but what counts is the passage to the second round, and then, the decisive voters’ decision. In recent years, it was taken for granted that the final would be between Macron and Marine Le Pen, a kind of repeat of what happened five years ago. And that the French would once again say no to the far-right candidate. That would make Macron's victory almost certain.

But politics, in a society as socially fragmented as France's, has its surprises. In recent months, Éric Zemmour, a television commentator with xenophobic and radical nationalist views, and who has made the fight against Muslim immigration and influence his main hobbyhorse, has upset the game. His entry into the field has reduced Marine Le Pen's chances. And although the radical right as a whole represents around 30% of the national political opinion, the current prediction is that neither Le Pen nor Zemmour will be able to make it to the second round of the presidential race. They will neutralise each other.

If it happens, that will be good news for France, but sad news for Macron. Even worse for him, however, is the emergence of Valérie Pécresse as a centre-right candidate, by choice of the Les Républicains party, a grouping of conservatives of various shades that has its roots in the Gaullism of old. Pécresse, a former minister under Nicolas Sarkozy and currently president of the region that encompasses Paris, attracts the same kind of electorate as Macron. She is a woman who has a modern, elegant, and calm image that goes over relatively well on television.

As the left does not carry any weight in France today - the socialist candidate, Anne Hidalgo, is credited by the most recent polls with only 2%-3% of voting intentions - the big contest will occur in the centre as well as in winning, in the second round, a share of voters from the ultra-right.

It is in such a context that Macron will start leading the EU. The central theme he proposes for the period of the French presidency is the strengthening of European sovereignty. In his view, this objective should be based, as a priority, on stricter border controls in the Schengen area. By emphasising this issue, he aims to kill two birds with one stone: he addresses the concerns of leaders like Viktor Orbán - with whom he recently held talks in Budapest; and he captures votes on the right, and even the extreme right, as far as the electorate in his country is concerned. These voters are against anything that might appear to be easy on migration issues.

The second dimension, he tells us, would be based on what he calls "a Europe of defence", something pointed out as the other fundamental pillar of European sovereignty. A subject often mentioned by the French president, but which remains a vague issue that divides member states. It is also based on an outdated notion of international power projection, essentially based on military force. In the European case, what may effectively counts is the vitality and modernity of its economy and the quality of its democracy, combined with a diplomacy of peace, cooperation and conflict mediation. In saying this I do not wish to belittle the function of the European armed forces. But above all they must try to refocus their strategic and operational role within NATO. It is above all there that the defence of Europe begins, consolidating, within the organisation, a wider area of decision-making autonomy for European member states.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper. Edition dated 31 December 2021)

 

 

 

 

The future of Europe requires a thorough debate

Europe and the Coming Turbulence

Victor Ângelo

 

The launch of the Conference on the Future of Europe took place this week in Strasbourg, at the official seat of the European Parliament. The symbolism of Strasbourg is enormous. It represents reconciliation, peace, democracy, and solidarity among Europeans. These four desiderata are still as relevant today as they have been during the last seven decades, a period of continued construction  of the European political edifice. It is therefore important to remind ourselves of that, to recognize where we have come from and to define where we want to go in the next decade.

That is the aim of this initiative, which is due to be completed in March 2022. It would be a mistake to make a cynical assessment of the conference. However subtle it may seem, cynicism is the knife of the bitter and the downbeat. What is called for is a citizen's reflection that combines realism with idealism, that is a critical but constructive view. It is a matter of going beyond the rhetoric or the usual elucubrations.

The conference is a different test, which will allow us to measure the strength of citizenship movements. In fact, the biggest challenge facing the EU is precisely that which stems from the gap of ignorance or indifference between politics and the European institutions on the one hand, and people's daily lives on the other. Even in Brussels, people who live a few blocks away from the European district seem to be as disconnected from the EU as any family living in a small village in Portugal. A political project that is not understood by ordinary mortals is fragile. It can easily be jeopardized by its enemies.

The nine axes for reflection about the future ignore this disconnection. The topics are important: climate change and the environment; health; the economy, employment, and social justice; the EU's role in the world; rights and security; digital transformation; democracy; migration; and education, culture, sport, and youth. But it is a mistake to take citizens' support for the European project for granted. This is a fundamental issue. After an absolutely exceptional year, we find in European societies a lot of frustration, confusion, impatience, and a more pronounced individualism. We also have a set of internal and external enemies ready to exploit vulnerabilities and bring down the EU. That is why the discussion about the path to 2030 must begin with an analysis of weaknesses and threats.

A forward-looking assessment of the coming years shows us that we will be impacted by three major shock waves. The first comes from the accelerating use of cybernetics, in particular artificial intelligence, which will turn many Europeans into digital illiterates and redundant labour. If not properly addressed, it will further exacerbate social inequalities and job insecurity.

The second will result from new waves of uncontrolled immigration and the exploitation of this phenomenon by certain forces. It will not only be Viktor Orbán or Jarosław Kaczyński, or even Sebastian Kurz, who will divide Europe on this issue. The chances of Marine Le Pen gaining power in 2022 or of Italy being ruled by a coalition of ultranationalists in 2023 - in an alliance of Matteo Salvini with neo-fascist leader Georgia Meloni, whose Fratelli d'Italia party already mobilizes 18% of the national electorate - must be reckoned with. A front that brings together such politicians in several member states would cause a potentially fatal fracture for the continuation of Europe.

The third strategic shock - something to be avoided at all costs - could come from a possible armed conflict between the United States and China. Such a confrontation, which can by no means be excluded from the prospective scenarios, would have a devastating effect. European stability and prosperity would go down the drain.

The message, now that the debate has been opened, is that there can be no taboo subjects and no incomplete scenarios that do not consider the internal and external complexity in which we will move. Already, one fact is certain. There are years of great upheaval ahead of us.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

 

 

The French malaise

When generals write open letters

Victor Angelo

 

A poll released this week by IFOP, the prestigious French public opinion institute, tells us that 86% of the French consider internal security as a central issue, which will influence the outcome of the May 2022 presidential election. On the other hand, in July 2020, 71% of the adult population considered that France is going through a process of decline. Decline is a vague concept, open to various interpretations. But it reveals a feeling of social malaise, which gave rise to the "yellow vests" and has been slyly exploited by the extreme right, especially by Marine Le Pen.

Another opinion survey conducted by the Jean-Jaurès Foundation, an institution with links to the Socialist Party, revealed that a good number of French citizens believe that there is too much disorder in the country. More specifically, 82% think that France needs a strong leader, capable of restoring public order and the authority of the state. President Emmanuel Macron must not have found any comfort in these opinion polls. The images that remain are of a nation mired in political indecision and sensitive to the narrative of the far right.

It is in this context that a few days ago an open letter appeared, signed by 24 reserve generals and a hundred or so senior officers and more than a thousand military personnel of other ranks, with one or two still on active duty and the rest retired. The letter, published in the ultranationalist magazine Valeurs Actuelles, seemed to be intended as leverage to strengthen the positions of the radical right. It was viewed by the government and by many with amazement and as a call for a hypothetical coup d'état.

The text is an attack on what its authors call the lack of courage of the political class to face the existing "chaos". They further state that this weakness may lead their active military comrades to an "intervention to defend the civilizational values" of France. The word intervention does not allow for ambiguity. This is the most explosive part of the missive, which has left the defence minister and many democrats on the boil. In Europe in 2021, such a suggestion is unacceptable, even more so coming from such a large number of officers who were only recently serving in the ranks.

"The hour is grave, France is in danger, is threatened by several deadly risks." So opens the document, in the well-worn style of those who paint chaos to then claim that it is time to save the homeland. The authors refer to what they call the disintegration of French society, to what they consider to be a spreading of hatred among various sections of the population, and attack "Islamism and the hordes of the suburbs," that is, immigrants of non-European origin who live mainly in the poor dormitories that are the outskirts of the big cities. Immigration is in fact one of the great battle horses of the national-extremists, in France as in other European countries. It is an issue that concerns people with lower incomes and pensioners with small pensions the most. References to immigration bring electoral dividends. Marine Le Pen knows this. It is moreover in these social categories, who once voted left or in popular movements, that she finds a good part of her support. The IFOP data shows that 40% of workers and other low-wage earners support Le Pen.

The issue has been little talked about outside the French hexagon. It is true that the pandemic, Russia, the EU sofagate, soccer, and concern over Cristina's TV ratings decline leave no room for other news. But the letter, revealing the political turmoil in France, has a dimension that goes beyond national borders. If next year Emmanuel Macron were to lose the presidential election and the far right were to take over power in Paris, the impact of that political earthquake on the future of the European project would be incalculable. So weakening Macron, as some are doing here and there, is a very serious mistake.

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

 

Putin and our side of Europe

The infinite Vladimir Putin

Victor Angelo

 

According to official figures, for what they are worth, the constitutional revision now enacted by Vladimir Putin would have received the approval of 78% of voters in July 2020. The opposition considered the referendum a sham full of pressure and manoeuvres, but the president will always stress that the revision deserved popular support. We all know how results like that are achieved in opaque and authoritarian regimes. In any case, it is estimated that nearly two thirds of Russians go along with the president, despite the economic doldrums, social dissatisfaction and obstacles to freedom. This level of acceptance - or resignation - is due to the regime's incessant propaganda of the leader, showing him to be a resolute and deeply nationalistic leader, the personifier and protector of Russian identity. The population still remembers the chaotic governance that preceded his coming to power in 1999. Putin means for many stability and public order.

Autocracy favours corrupt practices. That is one of the regime's weaknesses. The campaign against Putin's absolute power involves unmasking high-level corruption. Attacking him based on the aberrations inscribed in the new constitution will not have much impact. It is true that the new law allows him to remain president, if life gives him health, until the age of 84 in 2036. That is the most striking aspect of the new constitutional text. It is a cunning move that aims to allow him to leave the scene when he sees fit, without losing an inch of authority until the final moment. The other relevant changes are the lifetime impunity granted to him and his sidekick Dmitry Medvedev, and the ban on homosexual marriages.

Seeing the Russian people condemned to another number of years of oppression makes anyone who knows and cherishes the value of freedom angry. But the problem is fundamentally an internal issue, which will have to be resolved by the Russian political system and citizens' movements. Our space for action is limited to insistently condemning the lack of democracy and the attacks that the regime makes against the fundamental rights of every citizen, starting with Alexei Navalny. But it is essential not to be naïve about the danger Putin represents in terms of our stability and security. When we talk about dialogue and economic relations we do not do so out of fear or mere opportunism. We do it because that is the way to treat a neighbour, however difficult, in order to have peace in the neighbourhood.

One of the most immediate problems relates to Ukraine's aspiration to join NATO. This is an understandable ambition. It should be dealt with according to the membership criteria - democracy, the rule of law, peaceful conflict resolution and guarantees for the proper functioning of the national armed forces, including the protection of defence secrets. Kiev and Brussels do not need to ask Moscow for permission. Vladimir Putin and his people will not be at all happy when it comes to formal negotiations. However, they have no right to oppose a legitimate foreign policy decision by an independent state. However, it is important that everything is done without burning the midway points and with the appropriate diplomacy to prevent an acceptable process being exploited by the adversary as if it were a provocation.

Another area of immediate concern: the cohesion of the European Union. Putin has long been intent on shattering European unity. He sees the French presidential election of 2022 as a unique opportunity. Marine Le Pen has, for the first time, a high chance of winning. She is viscerally ultranationalist and against the European project. Her election would pose a very serious risk to the continuation of the EU. Putin knows this. He will do everything to intervene in the French electoral process and ruin anyone who might be an obstacle to the victory of the candidate who best serves his interests. It is essential to put a stop to this meddling and, at the same time, to bear in mind the lesson that the Russian leader reminds us daily: vital disputes between the major blocs are no longer fought only with a sword and rocket fire.

   (Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

Marine Le Pen and her little brothers elsewhere

Le Pen and our pains

Victor Angelo

 

Marine Le Pen came to Portugal to support his ideological relative. In France, she is the most visible and fierce face of right-wing extremism. Her party, the Rassemblement National (RN), is a collection of backwards, neo-fascists, racists, ruffians, antiglobalists, as well as several political orphans and other resentful people. The mixture includes part of the new poor, a proletariat which the modernisation and internationalisation of the economy have pushed to the suburbs of politics and life. The RN represents a little over 20% of the electorate, a revealing percentage of a France full of contradictions, frustrations, inequalities, and hatreds. On the party scene in the country, Le Pen and his people are regarded, including by the conservative right, as not at all recommendable, people one should not be associated with.

In 2017, Le Pen went to the second round of the presidential elections against Emmanuel Macron. She emerged unequivocally defeated and with an image of incompetence. In the television debate against her opponent, she got lost when discussing issues of substance. She could not go beyond the stereotypical plates. This confirmed that her ideology was hollow, lined with primary ultranationalism, nostalgy of the past, xenophobia and unbridled personal ambition.

She is now preparing for the presidential elections of 2022. A part of the conservative right knows that a new clash between Macron and Le Pen will bring a new defeat. Therefore they have tried to find a more credible alternative, but without achieving it. Marine Le Pen and the local deployment of RN leave no room for such manoeuvres. The face of right-wing extremism remains hers. But after the failure of 2017, she has learned that power is not won in a politically mature society with mere slogans and banalities. In the interview with the Diário de Notícias (10/1/2021), she made it clear that her campaign will focus on four themes - security, immigration, traditional family values and employment. This means that in order to win votes, she will seek to exploit fears and weaknesses, especially the fear of what is foreign, feelings of precariousness and social injustice, as well as prejudices stemming from an old-fashioned view of relations between people.

In essence, the main strategy of Le Pen and all the extremists is to demonise a category of citizens, to create an internal enemy, which becomes the visible and repeated focus of all attacks. In the French case, it is easy to identify this target - the Muslims. They are euphemistically referred to as "immigrants" and concentrate all the fire that the RN brings into combat. To this is added a rhetoric of economic nationalism, which swears to defend the jobs of the French. This is how the slogans against Islam, immigration, globalisation, and strongly anti-EU appear, as well as the flags of patriotism and Western civilisation as understood by the RN. 

It was this dreadful character who came to support the Portuguese "cousin". During her stay, she may have noticed that the Portuguese extremists’ opportunities for growth are practically non-existent. Our nervous extremists lack a social group that can be effectively referred to as a threat to the security of society and the preservation of national culture. Without a target that can generate fear, radical movements do not gain strength. In the absence of serious national fractures, the "Portuguese cousin" had no choice but to focus on the only social group that presents some differences from the generality of citizens. But this group - the Roma community - is not seen by the rest of the Portuguese, despite the existence of images and prejudices that come from far away, as an existential national threat. On the contrary, they are people considered vulnerable and powerless. The truth is that the extremists of the Portuguese right, unlike in other European countries, have little political space, because there is no identity that can be exploited and defined as an enemy.

This does not mean that one should not be attentive. On the contrary. Here, as in the rest of Europe, there will be major social crises in the coming years following the pandemic. And major crises often open the door to the emergence of so-called saviours of the homeland, who, history teaches us, have always sunk it.

 

(Automatic translation of the opinion piece I published today in the Diário de Notícias, the old and prestigious Lisbon newspaper)

 

Dealing with Islamist terrorism

 Terror or democracy

Victor Angelo

 

Almost two hundred and fifty years after his death, Voltaire remains one of the most influential thinkers in the history of France and Europe. He wrote abundantly and was an advisor to the great ones of his time. His political and philosophical thinking opened the path that would lead to the French Revolution and to the national motto that remains today: Freedom, Equality, Fraternity. His writings mocked religious dogmas, at a time when it was very dangerous to do so. They fought against intolerance, advocated freedom of expression and the separation of the church from the state. In 1736, he wrote a play against religious intransigence, which he entitled "Fanaticism or Mohammed the Prophet". In this tragedy, Voltaire criticized directly and with all the letters the founder of Islam. Personally, I read the work as an onslaught against religions, in one case, openly, in another, that of Catholicism, in a more subtle way, so as not to endanger his own skin.

Now it has become impossible to teach Voltaire in some schools in France, especially in the suburbs of Paris. Certain students, coming from radicalized Muslim families, prevent this from happening. For these people, Voltaire is the worst of the infidels, the one who dared to sully the name of the Prophet. In the past, the Holy Catholic Inquisition burned heretics in public. In the present of the Islamist maniacs, Voltaire would be beheaded. Besides Voltaire, it is a danger to talk about the Holocaust or condemn anti-Semitism, to quote the writer Gustave Flaubert and his novel Madame Bovary - a free and passionate woman, a terrible example for a radical who considers that women should be submissive and walk covered from head to toe - or try to discuss Charlie Hebdo and the caricatures of Mohammed. A good part of the French public-school system lives in a climate of turmoil, in which the violent reaction of certain students has replaced the debate of ideas. And the intimidation begins earlier and earlier. There are already stories of boys refusing to sit next to girls in maternal schools.

All this leads us to the criminal and absurd decapitation that took place last week. The victim, Professor Samuel Paty, was a brave man and aware that the mission of the schools is also to form future citizens, free, equal in rights, in solidarity, respectful and responsible. But in France, the secular school has been actively undermined by radical Islamists since 2005. A recent survey revealed that about 40% of teachers of literary, civic and humanities subjects censor themselves and do not mention in their classes anything that might provoke the anger of the most fanatical students. Therefore, my first reaction to the news of the mad act was admiration for Samuel Paty's courage and sense of professional duty. He also reminded me that the response to the terrorist threat is to behave vertically, unequivocally firmly.

But courage and firmness cannot be just individual issues. Terrorism is not the result, as some claim, of the actions of "lone wolves”. The old visionary Friedrich Nietzsche said that "everything that is absolute belongs to pathology," but in the case of terrorism, this is more the social context. We are facing an extreme identity phenomenon, a social ecosystem that makes thousands of families live in a Salafist ideological swamp. They are a minority fringe of European citizens of Muslim faith, but their actions are very destabilizing.

In situations like France - and in other European countries, notably Belgium and the Netherlands, which go in the same direction as France - it is essential to get the right appropriate political response. On another occasion, I will write about the security treatment of the issue. Politically, it is important to begin by recognizing that fanaticism, by placing a manipulated, primary, and ignorant interpretation of religion above the values of the republic, is a threat to democracy and social peace. If the democrats could not deal with terrorist radicalism, the extreme right, whether it be called Le Pen or something else, in some other country, would use that political bankruptcy to gain power. And then it would crush everyone, not just the exalted knife-wielders and their supporting communities.

(Machine translation of my opinion column of today, published in the Portuguese newspaper Diário de Notícias, Lisbon)

 

 

 

The extreme right and its tactics

The extreme right is like a hodgepodge of ideas. That explains part of its current strength.

 I have looked at their political programmes, statements and slogans. They bring together racist views and ultranationalist feelings with proposals they stole from the left or even from the far left. That is their way of casting the net wide and catching different categories of voters, from the very traditionalist type, the old style bourgeois, to the working class people, that are impressed by the radical promises the extreme right makes in terms of lower taxes, jobs for the citizens, tariffs at the borders, and so on, including the hate posture against international trade and supranational institutions.

They have an agenda that is far from being coherent. But they do not care about consistency and logical sets of proposals. They care about being as populist as they can.

It is not a protest posture, contrary to what many say. It is a deliberate assemblage of impossibilities to attract as many voters as they can. And if they can add to that a smart leader, a sweet talker, and tough discourse, they increase their chances of being supported.

That’s what we have seen today in some EU countries.

Time to be very clear

The campaign for the final round of the French presidential election – to be held on May 7 – has started. The actions so far show a country that is deeply divided. And also, leaders that have lost their sense of direction and above all, the courage to be clear about what is at stake. We are confronted with a terribly dangerous mix of abysmal personal resentment with a large and widespread dose of political confusion.

It is obvious this is a time that calls for profound changes in the way politics are conducted in France.

Le Pen´s camp belongs to the old order. It represents the past in so many ways. Certainly, not the future.

Furthermore, I see a lot of rage in the ranks of her supporters.

And Le Pen's political style and posture reminds me of the caudillos of another era.

We should not be blind to the way she conducts her public performances and deaf to what she says. This candidate and her words are animated by feelings of intolerance, resentment, negative passions, and violence against the opponents. 

These destructive attitudes and beliefs should be exposed relentlessly.