The threat to Giscard
Sam White
Paris Since my last despatch from the French election battlefield, a new element has emerged in what can be roughly described as a struggle between left and right — financial panic. The dykes protecting the French franc have finally been breached and the flood waters are beginning to seep through. The franc has dropped nearly 4 per cent in the past few days in relation to the dollar and even more dramatically against the Deutschemark and the Swiss franc. Whatever devices the Bank of France may use to try and close the breach the continuing decline of the franc seems Inevitable from now until at least the elections in four weeks' time. The Prime Minister M. Barre blames the decline on 'Psychological factors' a neat euphemism for Political uncertainty. It foreshadows of course what will happen to the franc in the event of a Socialist — Communist victory in the elections. What is surprising is that the franc has held up so well and for so long in view of the increasing likelihood that the left would in fact win.
This constitutes something of a miracle and like all good miracles it was largely the result of faith, faith that a prosperous France would in the last resort be unwilling to entrust its fate to what would amount to a Socialist-Communist coalition, faith that even if it did with Giscard at the Elysee a Compromise solution would emerge, faith finally that once . in power the socialists would opt for gradualism rather than something akin to an abrupt revolutionary takeover. Now this relative confidence and, With it the dyke protecting the franc, have been greatly weakened by a series of almost concurrent blows: first Giscard's recent declaration that as President his powers could not permit him to block the application of the left's common programme, second the realisation that if the socialist leader M Mitterrand came to power as Prime Minister the most demagogic promises made in the common programme would be immediately carried out, and third that, Ear from being able to intervene at a decisive moment and dissolve the new assembly, the master of the game would be not Giscard but Mitterrand.
These cumulative shocks, plus the latest Opinion polls, showing that Giscard's inter vention in the battle has had little or no effect in undermining the left's six-point lead, have had the inevitable effect of snapping the last threads of confidence in the franc. Mitterrand may clamour for the government to take measures to defend the
franc, and he may even denounce the whole affair as a plot, but the fact remains that it
was he himself who dealt the decisive blow against confidence in the currency. He did so by shifting his ground on the question of an increase in the basic wage.
The extra charges that this would impose on small enterprises coupled with extra social charges, and all this in a country in which one worker out of four works for the export industry, created dismay not only in the international money markets but also at home. Shares in French industry took a nose-dive on the Bourse and the price of gold went soaring. Meanwhile there has been an interesting silence on the One hand and an interesting response on the other to the question Giscard asked in his last speech: 'would there be communists in a Mitterrand government?' From Mitterrand there has been a deafening silence while from the communists a prompt: 'Yes, of course there would be.' They are now credited — and they are not denying it — with demanding seven ministerial posts in any government formed after the left wins the elections.
Two of the ministries they have already claimed would be hacked out of the Ministry of Defence and the Ministry of the Interior — in other words two of the key posts in which their men would as it were 'mark' their socialist colleagues. We have travelled far from the days when Mitterrand could anticipate treating the communists after the elections with the same lordly disdain as de Gaulle did after the liberation, when he refused them the three key posts — defence, interior and foreign affairs. This is, of course, one of the reasons why it will be imperative for Mitterrand to get to the
Elysee as soon as possible after a general election victory. As someone wrote recently, anyone who thinks that Mit-, terrand will allow Giscard to bide his time until a favourable moment arrives to strike is attributing to the socialist leader the innocence of a political neophyte. He will do nothing of the sort and he will try to make life as difficult and humiliating for Giscard as possible after the parliamentary one. The result of a left victory therefore will be a running conflict between Mitterand as Prime Minister and the Elysee. To fight off the communist Marchais. Mitterrand has first of all to bring about the downfall of Giscard.
He will be in a strong position to force a new presidential election. He will be able to point to the fact that having lost the parliamentary elections Giscard will have lost three elections in a row, the latest being preceded by the Cantonal elections two years ago and the Municipal ones last year. What kind of credit would he be able to claim at home and abroad after three such resounding defeats? True de Gaulle and his successors carved out for themselves the domains of defence and foreign affairs but there is nothing in the constitution that would prevent the Prime Minister from claiming these back for himself. Altogether the picture for France, whatever the outcome of the vote which is bound to be narrow, is a grim one. For light relief— after a fashion — one has to turn to those splendid comic performers who are never off the television screen — the communist leader Georges Marchais and that gaudily plumed political hybrid, Jean-Jacques Servan Schreiber.
In a recent speech Marchais, whose indiarubber face comprises every expression including tongue in cheek, said that while everything in France had changed during the past thirty years only one thing had remained unchanged and that was the condition of the working class. This is, of course, so far off the mark that it might be said that if successive Labour governments had anything like the record in the fields of reform and social legislation that de Gaulle and his successors have had then they would be hailed as examples of social democracy in action. All this is, of course, leaving aside for the moment the fact that wage packets have never lagged behind inflation and consistently kept ahead of it. But even if one were to admit Marchais' point, that is a sad commentary on the state of French trade unionism, and especially a tradeunionism dominated by the Communist Party. As for Servan-Schreiber, he represents nothing but the right-wing segment of the Radical Party, the other half being represented by Robert Fabre who has joined the opposition. Together they represent less than the 5 per cent the ecologists are expected to get. Yet both are determined to be in a position to hold the balance of power in the new National Assembly. Here, however, we enter the world of Walter Mitty.
Previous page
