Excerpts from this interview :

​

The French liberal and conservative Right has increasingly adopted the xenophobic terms of language employed by the far-right, to the point where the once-distinct lines separating the two camps have become blurred, if not dissolved. The latest example is a comment by Emmanuel Macron’s former prime minister Édouard Philippe, a centre-right presidential hopeful, who placed “anti-white racism” on a par with other forms of racism. Mediapart’s  Fabien Escalona turned to political scientist Émilien Houard-Vial, a specialist of the contemporary French Right, for his analysis of why and how what was taboo has become normalized.
(…)
What does this tell us about the current state of France’s rightwing camp, and when did the linguistic crossover begin? For an insight, Mediapart turned to political scientist Émilien Houard-Vial, a teacher with the Sciences Po Centre for European Studies and Comparative Politics, and who is a widely recognised specialist of the contemporary French Right.

Mediapart: Édouard Philippe has adopted the expression “anti-white racism”. How should one interpret this new example of the legitimisation of the phrases of the far-right?

Émilien Houard-Vial: It can be seen as surprising given that Édouard Philippe, during the length of his political career, has rather highlighted liberal themes. A former juppéiste, [editor’s note, a close supporter of former conservative prime minister Alain Juppé], he is regarded as a political leader who comes from the moderate fringes of the UMP [conservative party, now renamed Les Républicains].
(…)
That is why, beginning three or four years ago, we are looking at a qualitative change, which was established with the arrival of Éric Ciotti as the head of LR. A threshold was crossed. It translates by the centrality and radicality of a rhetoric according to which a majority and native population sees itself threatened – at a cultural and symbolic level as well as in its physical integrity – by Islamism and, more generally, by minorities that are both non-assimilable and ‘decivilised’.        

The result is that today, LR officials rise up on social media against a minister who denies the “obvious” link between delinquency and immigration, and this without any form of consequent opposition within the party.

Mediapart: By force of taking up the ethno-centrist and authoritarian vocabulary of the far-right, what in substance still distinguishes the LR from the latter?

E.H-V: On those issues, it’s become increasingly difficult to discern. The differences have become ‘meta-ideological’ in the sense that there is no more fighting over the issues, but rather over the manner of defending the arguments. That’s what Éric Ciotti does when he explains that the LR is the Rassemblement National [RN] in a more competent form. The added value of the Right would be that it is better placed to enact its programme. That joins with a political culture that further distinguishes itself from the RN, and in which its cadres have been socialised: a culture of a party of government, of people who know how to ‘behave’ in order to concretely exercise power
(…)
So, one cannot say that LR and the RN propose exactly the same thing, even if factually the positions are evermore closer. To take another example, some people in LR call for the removal of birthright citizenship, or also a moratorium on immigration – a manner of drawing closer to Marine Le Pen’s “zero” immigration.

Mediapart: There have been numerous studies that show that competing with the far-right on its own territory is a mistaken strategy in the medium- and long-term. In France, is there a probability that the conservative opposition will become aware of this and attempt a different approach?

E.H-V: LR has so much criticised the “limp Right” and the “rightwing of the Left” that it seems to me difficult to implement a reversal. During the [parliamentary] debates over the motion rejecting the draft legislation on immigration, its Members of Parliament painted Darmanin as an “immigrationist”. A lot of the moderate electorate have already been dissuaded by the evolution of the language.
(…)

Figures like [LR Member of Parliament and former secretary general of the party] Aurélien Pradié try to think of a dignified way out of the dilemma between ‘Macronism’ and ‘Lepenism’ – or ‘Zemmourism’. According to that view, LR should champion new issues, in line with the major preoccupations of the population, notably of those living in urban peripheries or rural areas abandoned by the state, which are lacking public services. These issues could be the subject of a line that mobilises the traditional values of the Right, like merit.

That is what senior civil servant Emmanuelle Mignon tried to do under Nicolas Sarkozy, and it should be noted that she has just taken up service again within LR where, with the rank of vice-president, she heads the “ideas” section of the party.

But how can this work be carried out when Éric Ciotti insists that the priority lies in the battle against wokeism and civilisational decline? Or when some are waiting for the collapse of ‘Macronism’, telling themselves that Laurent Wauquiez could appear as if a Gaullist saviour? The party has still not collectively analysed why the Sarkozist strategy worked in certain conditions in 2007, and why it failed on three occasions afterwards.  

Fabien Escalona, 31 December 2023 à 21h43