Philippe Val
Le Referendum des Laches (The Referendum of the Cowards)
Paris, Ed. Le Cherche Midi, 2005

Reading this small book was a surprise, a happy surprise, one which leaves you buoyant and light-hearted, and eager to share it with all your friends – which was soon done and rapidly spread out in concentric waves. That is the reason why, one year after the results of the French vote, a review presenting the content of this book may still be of interest at a time when the breakdown of the European construction is under the eyes of everybody.
During the electoral campaign for the referendum on the adoption of the European Constitutional Treaty (ECT) which took place in France in May 2005, federalist militants became aware, day after day, of the weakness of the campaign for the Yes led by the main political leaders and organizations, a campaign that the federalists could not help much with their enthusiasm. This is the reason why the message delivered by Philippe Val was welcomed as a good piece of news. The interest of its arguments, which will be summarized in the present note, was much increased by the position occupied by its author in the French political scene as a columnist. Director and Editorial writer of the weekly Charlie Hebdo, Philippe Val in his leader articles developed arguments in favour of the Yes vote, against the advice of most of his editorial staff, who were in favour of various currents in the French radical left. As a satirical paper, Charlie Hebdo does not mind its words when it criticizes established powers, be they capitalism, outdated values, authoritarian government trends, violence and the abusing of individuals. It is the reason why the support given to the ECT by a somewhat iconoclastic personality aroused at least some curiosity and a desire to debate the issues.
As far as new arguments are concerned, in the book there are few of them for the federalists, but on the other hand the tone, the way to present the problems, to link analyses, to connect arguments, all this adds to the usual style of a pro-European and federalist approach. For the first time a passion and conviction deeply rooted in a private history inspire words for a Europe of flesh and blood. It is not about a virtual Europe but a Europe which lives in men’s bodies and minds, in the reality of cultures which are both deeply rooted and of everyday use. And at a conference-debate between Philippe Val and the Rhône-Alpes federalists the writer confirmed the dimension of his commitment which we find now in his written testimony.
Of this small book, which Philippe Val meant as a scathing tract to spread his ideas, only few copies have been sold, due to rather weak advertising; but its publication allowed its writer to take a very active part in various televised talks. From the very first lines the book is presented as “a combative pamphlet expressing a deeply-felt commitment. I am devoted to the European cause in such a sensitive way, that I am astonished of myself” (p. 7). The form, which is a bit rugged and less structured than it should have been, is due to the hurry in which the writer found himself. Why did he submit to the “revolt and anger” which are the reasons of such urgency?
Because the author puts the stake of the referendum on the burning issue of the “nation”, which is the underlying taboo of this ballot. For him “the problem posed by the adoption of this Constitution is that it marks a fundamental stage on the way to the abandonment of national sovereignty. It announces the end of the nation in favour of a federation” (p. 56). Numerous elements of an analysis of the function and the history of the nation are to be found in the chapters of this book. In it we also perceive the denouncement of a strong personal conviction: “Everything happens as if the protagonists had agreed to speak of something else… nobody wants to touch this idea of the nation” (p. 16). “To open the debate entails breaking the taboo of the nation, a concept which is much more sacred in the minds of the citizens than one may imagine, although they are not fully aware of it” (p. 26).
In fact, the debate on the Constitution rekindles in France very old quarrels at the very heart of the debate on the “nation”: what are its foundations? The territory or an ideal? The primacy of the rights of man or the reason of State? This approach leads Philippe Val to a vigorous criticism of “souverainiste” ideas and even to the attempt to unmask hidden positions. The protesting upholders of sovereignty prefer criticizing Europe rather than “the holy nation”, even though the decisions they dislike are taken by national authorities. This observation, which regularly comes up in the actions sponsored, among others, by the French Communist Party, matches up with the conception of internationalism, which is connected with the idea of nation, which is also strongly rooted in the psychology of the main leaders of ATTAC, a radical-left movement.
Philippe Val denounces the caution of these leaders, who refuse to reveal their deeper motivations to militants; they are misled and attracted only by the radical economic criticism directed against the ECT. He charges the ones and the others with simply having chosen to unite against Europe all kinds of discontent. It is true that a wide variety of complaints and sufferings lead to say No to everything and anything – and never mind the European Constitution!
Another recurrent theme in the book is peace. Several times the writer is struck by the “weariness” or “boredom” that the lasting peace reigning over the European continent seems to engender. Peace for too long? “The argument according to which ‘Europe means peace’ is on the point of losing its meaning, since peace has become the natural element we live in” (p. 109).
From his dedication to peace, peace being a priceless value, Philippe Val opens two interesting perspectives. On the one hand, he considers that the construction of peace entails, explains and justifies the complexity of the European construction in general and of the ECT in particular. To his mind, such a lengthy and dull text is “the price to be paid for a political creation – the construction of Europe – with no precedent in the past, a consequence of the economic, political and moral collapse of Europe after the two world wars” (p. 12). On the other hand, this process leads to developing a culture of negotiation and discussion that progressively replaces the culture of confrontation and war, which used to be a much easier one.
From this basic remark it is possible to draw a strategic reflection for the federalist thought. To say No to the ECT is an act based on a national ideal. To say Yes means accepting compromise, negotiation, discussion. Consequently, it is a confrontation between a concrete ideal and an horizon which recedes as one moves forward. “One does not send men to be killed for an horizon”. Hence an important question on the forms of the federalist action towards a European people: how to galvanize and mobilize citizens for a federal Europe?
Dynamic and militant, the author launches a few pointed remarks at the supporters of the Yes in the referendum; for him, they got caught in a debate about real concerns, and in order not to appear cynical, they have prudently camped on the very ground of controversies chosen by the supporters of the No, so as to elude the problem of the nation. They did not fight against the strategy of a scapegoat (Europe) which was employed against them. He goes so far as to denounce their pusillanimity, not to say their cowardice, when they did not dare to speak of the construction of a European federation, of European federalism, which were the real issues at stake (pp. 70-71).
There are three positive aspects in the militant message delivered by Philippe Val, each one being an element which enriches federalist culture in an original way.
He contributes to the definition of a positive pro-European action. He strongly places his reflection in the field of politics. “When the supporters of the No protest that they are genuine Europeans, they play with words… Today “European” has in fact two meanings: a traditional acceptation, “of European origin and culture”, and a more upto- date sense, “in favour of the abandonment of sovereignty as necessary to the building of a new Europe”” (p. 23). He resolutely takes position in favour of a Federal Europe, but he disagrees with the tenets of militant federalists by stating that the present construction of Europe is already federal, in his opinion, in the institutions already in existence (European laws prevailing over national laws). Consequently, according to him, the ECT is only one additional, democratic stage towards a fully federal Europe.
The political debate on the referendum is a confrontation between républicains (in the French, quite nationalist, sense) and democrats. The Yes or No votes have been given according to the prevailing political leaning of the voters. The unquestionable democratic advances brought by the Constitution largely compensate for the loss of the former structuring values, i.e. the republic
associated with the nation.
Indeed, a debate did take place, but there is a final criticism on the role played by the media. A detailed analysis shows that in over 7 weeks of open debate, the agony, then the death and funeral of Pope Jean-Paul II was given a paramount place in the news for more than three weeks, clouding the political debate. It might not have changed the result of the ballot, but it may have had a greater weight in the balance than one thinks. The role played by the media has not been analyzed further, but we know that the history and analysis of this political event remains to be written.
In his conclusion, Philippe Val enlarges his topic to the scale of the world and mankind: “To be a citizen of Europe means sharing ideas and not origins… The European construction is a cosmopolitan thought, which asserts itself politically against any ethnic thought” (p. 112).