Among the rituals of the left, summer universities offered up to now great
occasions to get together to smile, announce plans for the coming year and
at least start a real debate. This year, not only are the summer schools
balkanized, (each current of the left and the socialist party finding useful
to hold its own), but the most serious debate which could have occupied the
socialist university of La Rochelle at the end of August seems to slip in a
succession of pathetic invectives.
The question is nevertheless fundamental: how will the left-wing candidate
be selected for the presidential elections of 2012? If quickly there is no
clear solution to this problem, all those who prance around waiting for
their turn will not accept the legitimacy of the procedures now in place and
will present themselves as candidates. We will then have at least five
candidates from the Socialist Party (Ségolène Royal, Martine Aubry, Vincent
Peillon, Manuel Vals and Arnaud Montebourg) while some of the best
(Dominique Strauss Kahn and Laurent Fabius) will abstain, allowing Olivier
Besancenot to be present in the second round against Nicolas Sarkozy, who
will then be re-elected with 80% of the votes.
To work around this obstacle, and give the future candidate from the left
maximum legitimacy, some, like the excellent club Terra Nova, suggest to
designate the candidate by all the “supporters” of the Socialist Party, or
even by all the supporters of all the left wing. To be considered “sympathizer”,
one would register as a voter, without paying dues.
The advantage of this process would be significant: the candidate would be
driven by a real debate on his program, he would be designated by millions
of people in all transparency, and would impose himself on all levels . This
would have numerous consequences: parties thus overwhelmed by their
supporters should gradually merge, and choose in the same way their
candidates in the other elections; party activists should find other reasons
to join than to designate candidates for offices that are as exciting as
they are profitable.
Three risks are not to be neglected: a greater mobilization of marginal
parties leading to the appointment of a candidate with no chance to be
elected: this would only prove that the Socialist Party, is incapable of
designating one of his own, and unworthy of governing.
Then, a refusal of the defeated to accept the vote and a return to the
multiplicity of candidates: one who would do that would not have much chance
to see his political career prosper. Finally, see the best possible
candidates refusing to participate in this process, fearing to be victims of
demagogy or low blow: imagine your Francois Mitterrand appointed in 1981 by
such a process, in front of a Michel Rocard then triumphant in the polls and
given as the only one able to overcome the outgoing president?) but here
again, the candidate who would like to avoid this in the primaries could not
be able to avoid it during the elections themselves.
It is therefore an opportunity for the left to seize, than to go as far in
the renewal of its identity. On the condition of giving itself the means of
drawing the conclusions from it …