Can Liberals stop Marine Le Pen?

The World War II defeat of fascism ushered Europe into an era where liberal democracy became the undisputed political ideology. West Germany became an exemplary democracy. By the end of the 1970s, the dictatorships of Spain, Portugal and Greece had disappeared and these countries soon transformed themselves into liberal, democratic states. 1989 saw the fall of the Berlin Wall rapidly followed by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the eventual expansion of liberal democratic ideals into former Soviet states. In Europe, the success of liberal democratic ideals seemed total and irreversible.

As is often the case, success breeds a complacency that soon turns to hubris. To many of us the idea that liberal and democratic ideals could be reversed just as quickly as they had taken hold was utterly inconceivable. As a result, we started first to forget and then to undermine some of the core principles that underpin the success of liberal democracy. We forgot that democracy derives its legitimacy from a politically engaged population not from the ruling class. We forgot that a system where the idea of democracy is reduced to no more than giving people the opportunity to vote once every five years or so is no democracy at all.

Many countries became effectively two party duopolies with power being transferred from one to the other at periodic intervals. Parties with political platforms that became ever more similar. This effective duopoly led some to believe that they had a right to have their turn at governing every decade or so. Politics became ever more remote from the voting public. Power became increasingly concentrated – in central government, in increasingly powerful unelected and unaccountable technocratic bodies such as ‘independent’ central banks, and in the hands of others such as big business and other concentrations of wealth.

We also forgot that liberal democratic ideals are about leaving power and responsibility as close as possible to the people rather concentrating it. The admirable ambition of creating a united Europe soon turned into a bureaucratic nightmare. The principle of subsidiarity became no more than words on some written declaration. In the name of both financial efficiency and the perceived imperatives of a globalised world, ever more power flowed first from villages, towns and regions to national governments and from there to the machinery of the European Union – a group of entities that had precious little democratic or emotional connection with the average voter.

Many of us – and also those who dominated power structures – tended to have a broad internationalist outlook that supported globalisation, free trade, free markets, free movement of people and largely open borders. The focus was on the economic benefits that these developments would undoubtedly bring. We believed that economic prosperity through ever more interlocked economies was the best way to prevent conflict and lock in the many successes of liberal democracy. The nation state started to be undermined in favour of grandiose visions of global governance.

However, while economists took over policy making and showed that, by their unidimensional metrics, much progress was being made, nobody seemed to be paying much attention to the cultural impact of these changes. Nobody was ‘measuring’ the damage being done to ordinary people’s sense of identity. The slow erosion of a sense of citizenship – something that had previously combined the privileges of citizenship with a sense of duty and social responsibility. The fact that economic prosperity was being bought at the expense of social cohesion.

There was then slow change in the meanings associated with ‘internationalism’, ‘globalisation’ and ‘free trade’ – from associations of these terms with increasing prosperity to their association with concentration of power, fear and insecurity. The increasing sense among ordinary people that they were progressively becoming politically disenfranchised. These changes were either unseen, or ignored, or dismissed as secondary to, and less important than, the economic benefits that were accruing across Europe.

Today, across the Continent, a new illiberal politics is tapping into these eroded cultural elements that, it turns out, were the essential foundations on which liberal democracies were built. Fueled by these slow changes and recently accelerated by events such as the refugee crisis and the threats from cross-border terrorism, an illiberal politics keeps spreading. From Europe’s periphery it is now slowly but surely seeping into Europe’s core – France, the founding country of modern liberal thought.

Mainstream parties have reacted to these development in different ways. Some have adopted the head-in-the-sand approach, dismissing this new politics as ‘populist’. Others have allowed themselves to be dragged in the same illiberal direction. In France, the march of the National Front was only stopped by the socialists withdrawing their candidates from the second round of the recent elections. These approaches will not work. Instead, we somehow need to re-discover some of the core foundations of liberal democracy that today’s mainstream politics has ended up betraying. And we need to take more seriously the cultural aspects of politics and understand that, in the long term, the cultural will always win out over the economic.

In 1946, Winston Churchill gave a speech in the small Missouri town of Fulton (population 7,000). He said “”From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent.” Seventy years after that speech, and a mere 27 years after the iron curtain was torn down, an illiberal tide is now sweeping across Europe. Can we reverse the tide by going back to the core principles on which liberal democracy was founded? Or will we react simply by trying to build a dike to stop it – only to achieve some delay but eventually to see our dike swept away by the consequences of our collective failures?

* Joe Zammit-Lucia is a co-founder and trustee of the think tank and a Lib Dem member

Read more by .
This entry was posted in Op-eds.


  • It’s a compelling narrative, that I have heard before, but I wonder if it is entirely accurate.

    To say that we forgot that democracy is about engaged citizens and is more than a vote once every five years, suggests there is some point in the past when we did much better on these scores. True, General Election turnouts were higher in the post-war years, but I think the decline there has as much to do with the class-based parties and the collapse of the class system as anything.

    When in the past did we have non-remote politicians, an engaged public, and big business that wielded little influence?

    And right or wrong, who is going to be inspired by this narrative of democratic decline? 40 years ago, half of Europe was under tyranny, and now half the world is democratic. That’s inspiring.

  • paul barker 17th Dec '15 - 4:20pm

    Well, for a start, I get 2 votes every 5 years, plus another 3 votes every 4 years. Others will get different numbers depending on where they live but most of us get at least 3 votes every 4 or 5 years. Lets not start exagerating. Of course all those votes could be made a lot more democratic but its only a century since 90% of us had no votes at all while some people got up to 6 votes each. We should always balance short-term steps backwards against long-term progress.

  • The French have , in Francois Bayrou , a Liberal candidate a very good one , who would have been one to stop the trend towards the right or , now the far right , and , as with our own situation , a lost opportunity. My father was from Trieste , mentioned in Churchills speech .The iron curtain analogy can work today , but the threats are more disparate now . We must not lose sight of the fact that Marine Le Pen and co have not done as well in the second round and Hollande is more likely to attract support in these difficult situations re terrorism . We should , all of us , as Liberals and democrats be leading from the front , we have right on our side !

  • I think this article generalises too much. Only about 13% of European Parliament MEPs are from what might be considered the far right. In some nations the “illiberal tides” the article refers to appear to be receding; in Spain and Italy for instance, where governments have challenged shibboleths and are undertaking fundamental reform.

    Regarding France, can it really be called “the founding country of modern liberal thought”? Historically, its record on, for example, slavery, women’s rights, the balance between authoritarianism and liberalism, is not of the best. French liberalism, to the extent that it exists between the Socialists and the Gaullists, drew its inspiration mainly from British liberals, notably those featured in Anne McElvoy’s fine BBC series.

    Peculiar circumstances pertain to France. The government was elected on policies that have failed; despite the creation of half a million state funded temporary jobs, unemployment has risen to 10.6% whilst direct and indirect taxation has substantially increased. The President has been forced to reverse course and apply so-called ‘social democrat’ policies. But whereas their tone confronts deeply held beliefs, in practice they are piece-meal and limited. So it’s not surprising that the electorate is disoriented and depressed, with the President’s popularity at an all-time low.

    At the same time, immigration challenges what is perhaps the most uni-cultural nation in Western Europe. For decades, immigrants have mostly been isolated in suburban ghettos. The hope was eventually they would be assimilated into the ‘native’ population and that has happened for some. However, many, whilst considering themselves French, still wish to express their cultural differences. Yet, if they do, widespread indirect discrimination bars their access to good jobs (or to any job). This discrimination is shielded and perhaps even fostered by the state’s refusal of any kind of ethnic monitoring. In any case, the visible expression of difference generates anger amongst those in the wider community who espouse relatively narrow cultural norms.

    So I would contend that the rise of the FN is due to factors specific to France. It may yet be contained by the kind of electoral tactics we saw during the recent elections; but courageous politicians are required to address the underlying causes.

Post a Comment

Lib Dem Voice welcomes comments from everyone but we ask you to be polite, to be on topic and to be who you say you are. You can read our comments policy in full here. Please respect it and all readers of the site.

To have your photo next to your comment please signup your email address with Gravatar.

Your email is never published. Required fields are marked *

Please complete the name of this site, Liberal Democrat ...?


Recent Comments

  • Tom Arms
    @brad You may be right. But then you may be wrong. I may be right. But then I may be wrong. The only one who is likely to be right is Vladimir Putin. But then h...
  • Phillip Bennion
    I will be chairing an event at Spring Conference entitled "Containing Russian Revanchism; What Must We Do?". Nathalie Loiseau MEP (France) and Petras Austrevici...
  • Christopher Haigh
    Too true John. Russia is an outlying vast place that can't quite work out if it belongs to the east or the west Putin might be wanting to reunite Russian minor...
  • john oundle
    'Matt Wardman Kremlinologising, I wonder whether Germany having tied themselves to Putin for energy' This is the most staggering part, Angela Merkel decid...
  • Fiona
    Thanks for writing this Michal, and for your role in this excellent programme. There's nothing quite like seeing things in person to help people understand how ...