The persistence of the National Front in French politics: Its impact beyond the 2002 presidential elections
- Introduction
- The National Front since its creation and the history of its leader
- Similar reasons in other European countries, yet specific particularities concerning France
- The political structure factors and the economic situation
- A possible come back
- Conclusion
Spring 2002, after living through the empowerment of the far right party FPPO led by Jorg Haider in Austria, the European community sees the first important action of the extremist right wing in a big European country, France. It is on the 21st of April that Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the National Front (FN), reached the second round of the Presidential elections with 16.86% of the French votes. Surprisingly, Le Pen was going to compete with Jacques Chirac on the 5th of May 2002. (CNN)
The entire population was watching TV when the pictures of the two candidates were revealed. This news instantly shook the country’s ground. Journalists were trying to keep a straight face and were already commenting on manifestations that promptly took place throughout France. Massive groupings of young and older people expressed their fear during interviews, political leaders argued on TV. France was going through a critical time in its political history. Even if the majority of the people thought that M. Le Pen couldn’t be elected president, pressure was definitely palpable, debates and manifestations took place everyday and words such as “FN” or “Le Pen” were constantly mentioned in conversations all around France.
[...] Thus, we understand now that the high scores of the FN in 1995 and in 2002 represented undecided voters who thought Le Pen would never be President and didn’t hesitate to vote Le Pen as a protest vote to demonstrate their rejection of the politics. In 2002, this tendency was very strong and the polls did not anticipate the phenomenon. Secondly, the diarchy of the executive, which means that the Executive branch is ruled by two heads of state (the President of the Republic and the First Minister): the President appoints the First Minister according to the majority in the National Assembly. [...]
[...] Once again, voting for the National Front appears to be a vote for ‘change’ or a ‘protest vote’ that illustrates this rejection of the French political system in general. I remember many voters (family members, friends and acquaintance) who declared they voted FN as a voice for protest. In addition, the socio-economic context, that often serves to explain the popularity of extreme movements, can partially explain the high percentage of the 1995 presidential election in favor of the FN. Indeed, Europe came out of an economic recession around 1995, however, in 2002, France had been experiencing a growing economy. [...]
[...] Then, following the regional election of 1998, the FN was in the middle of a scandal: in several regional assemblies, the classic right wing party did not have enough seats to obtain a majority, which pushed several right wing candidates to accept the votes from the National Front for the election for the President of the Region. A year later, Bruno Mégret, who was number two of the National Front left the party due to inner conflicts. Yet, Mégret founded his own movement called FN-MN, which became later on the MNR (Mouvement National Républicain- National Republican Movement) and, was completely ignored during the 2002 Presidential election. [...]
Only by the internal, domestic politics of states can one understand how they behave in...
«Introduction. The internal, domestic politics of states. International relations. State-society approach. Different movements with respect to realism. Conclusion.»
«Theories in international relations are built in order to understand the international anarchy, according to Grieco. Scholars are interested in analyzing struggles between states, as well military as economic one. So this topic is actually the study of states' behavior in the world, and...»
International relations of the United States
«Introduction. The climax of American world. During the Clinton era (’93). George Bush. Iraq war. Obama. Rising powers. Conclusion.»
«After WWII, the charter of United Nations prohibited war. But the real order after WWII was a bipolar world with a Cold War between two powers: US and URSS = Legal system vs. reality. At the end of cold war: the world needs a new order. The US becomes the only leader because it is the only...»