AI-assisted translation of the post: Francia: i gollisti in marcia verso il lepenismo

Nothing is worse than bending great principles to the demands of everyday politics. A clear example of this is the open letter published in Le Figaro by 170 MPs and senators from Les Républicains, heirs of Gaullism, defending Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau. Retailleau has been accused of undermining the rule of law. The real aim, it turns out, is to vie for leadership of the anti-republican right.

From fake news to false debates

In an interview with Journal du Dimanche, Retailleau stated, «The rule of law is neither intangible nor sacred. It is a set of rules, a hierarchy of norms, judicial review, separation of powers, but the source of the rule of law is democracy; it is the sovereign people.» These remarks caused a great stir in a France that is attempting to distance itself from the populism of the Rassemblement National (and, on the left, of La France Insoumise).

Prime Minister Michel Barnier was forced to “reframe” his minister, clarifying in his general policy speech that «the firmness in penal policy that the French demand of us is inseparable from respect for the rule of law and the principle of judicial independence and impartiality, which I personally, deeply, and definitively uphold.» These comments came shortly after Retailleau claimed that a «false debate» had been raised. He added, «Today, the law does not sufficiently protect the French,» a statement that pertains not to the rule of law but to the effectiveness of the legal system.

Retailleau continued, «Obviously, there can be no democracy without the rule of law, without public authorities respecting the law and freedoms. This is the foundation of our Republic. When current laws no longer guarantee all rights — beginning with the fundamental right to protection — they must evolve, in full respect of the institutions of our Republic.» These words expose the ambiguity between the efficiency of the legal system — a theme that can arise in any regime — and the institutional framework of the rule of law, the republican liberalism that France has played a pivotal role in formalizing, spreading throughout Europe the more limited experiences of England and the United States.

The ambiguity of the Républicains

The debate, it turns out, was not false, as evidenced by the article penned by 170 French MPs and senators from Les Républicains in support of the minister in Le Figaro. The discussion begins with the increasing violence in France, supported even by some statistical data, which is of great concern to the public. Addressing how to respond to this issue appropriately — even for Les Républicains — seems to open up a false debate. «It is futile to try to oppose,» the MPs and senators write, «the rule of law and public security.» This statement would be irrefutable if the very open letter itself did not do just that.

The starting point for the debate is the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen of 1789, which, for any French republican, whether on the right or left, is foundational. «The purpose of any political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression,» reads Article 2. The list is impressive: liberty, property, security, and resistance to oppression, placed on an equal level but in an order that, following the American political philosopher John Rawls, could be described as lexical. It is an order like that of alphabetizing a list: “A” comes before “B,” and so on.

For Les Républicains, however, only security matters, a hallmark of authoritarian right-wing ideology, and their confusion grows: Article 2 of the Declaration is not about the rule of law. «The rule of law also consists in giving the State the ability to enforce laws to guarantee the security owed to every French citizen,» the MPs and senators write instead.

The confusion reigns (and this is concerning among politicians who claim to be republicans), and subsequent passages confirm it. «The rule of law is not, and has never been, immutable,» they continue, citing examples like «gender parity, the Environmental Charter, or the right to voluntary termination of pregnancy under the conditions provided by law.» These examples don’t change the rule of law itself but the list of fundamental rights. They ask, «Why should irregular immigration, the fight against violence, and the combat against communitarianism be exempt from evolution when they are central to French concerns?»

Against the Droits de l’Homme

The ambiguity is quickly resolved when Les Républicains shift their focus to Europe and the European Court of Justice, and by extension, the Charter of Fundamental Rights: «We must also consider the possibility of overriding any judgments from European courts that could undermine our constitutional order.»

Thus, the issue at hand is not the rule of law itself. This ambiguity — as seen in Hungary and other countries dominated by illiberal, plebiscitary, and therefore anti-republican, right-wing movements — serves an authoritarian agenda. However, what is truly at stake are fundamental rights, the universality of rights that French culture has taught the world, and their institutional guarantees. No curtailment of these rights and guarantees is necessary to combat violence, whether domestic or linked to illegal immigration. Italy, which successfully defeated both right- and left-wing terrorism and is slowly dismantling organized crime, is an example of effectiveness without sacrificing fundamental rights.

What we are witnessing, then, is the “lepenization” of Les Républicains, a phenomenon that is not quite new. It represents the betrayal of French republican ideals — reaffirmed in the 1980s by the work of Claude Nicolet — in favor of the illiberal sovereigntism of the Rassemblement National. The condemnation of Eric Ciotti, the party’s president, almost single-handedly allied with RN, was not a sign of incompatibility between the two parties, but rather an episode in a long-standing battle for dominance over the radical right.

If this analysis holds true, the Barnier government — which seeks to unite Les Républicains with the more liberal Macronian center (though not entirely liberal), and harbors the ambition of eventually bringing together the more moderate left — could face a short lifespan.