A parliamentary inquiry report accuses the National Rally of being a “transmission belt” of Russian power.
For the president of the NGO Transparency International France, Patrick Lefas, the National Rally is “the watered sprinkler”, after the publication of the report of the parliamentary commission of inquiry into foreign interference, pointing to the “alignment of the National Front (now Rassemblement national) on the Russian discourse”.
>> EDITORIAL. The National Rally and Russia: a long love story, thwarted since the invasion of Ukraine
The RN is singled out, accused of being “a transmission belt” of Russia, while the party of Marine Le Pen had itself launched this commission of inquiry with the aim of getting rid of the embarrassing image of proximity to the Kremlin. However, according to Patrick Lefas, who was interviewed as part of the writing of the report of the parliamentary commission of inquiry into foreign interference, “the substance of the subject has not been treated” and the commission “missed its target”.
franceinfo: Are you surprised to see the RN, which is nevertheless at the origin of this commission, being indicted in this report?
Patrick Lefas: No, not at all, because I think that by proposing this commission of inquiry, the National Rally thought it could deflect the trajectory and develop analyzes around other foreign influences. It’s a little bit the sprinkler watered.
The report was adopted by eleven votes for, five against. The Insoumis, in particular, abstained on the grounds that they believe that this report is not exhaustive on the influence of other States in France. Is that the case ?
There were questions about Qatar, the United States, China, Russia. But it seems to me that this is not the way to take the subject. What is important is to see what foreign interference is. How she exercises. What are the targets? What are the means of action? What techniques were used ? It is therefore necessary to define the concept, which has not been done, it seems to me, or under the benefit of an inventory on reading. And so this commission of inquiry missed its target.
The commission did not go to the bottom of the subject according to you?
In my opinion, the substance of the subject has not been treated. In any case, we expected this commission of inquiry to deal with the issues of diplomacy, espionage, lobbying, everything around the representation of interests, corruption, public mobility- private for politicians and senior civil servants, the financing of political parties.
On the supervision of mobility between the private and the public sector, the specific question that is asked is that of the fate of former national officials who are cashing in on their talent and their address book. And from this point of view, there is an issue of exemplarity, of dignity when one has been Prime Minister.
“For example, when François Fillon says he can sell rillettes on Red Square, he is legally right, but politically wrong.”
More generally, are the measures in France to fight against interference, for more transparency in public life, sufficient? Do they work?
I think that’s what the commission should have focused on. She should have taken stock of how the 2013 law on the transparency of public life was made. Also wonder about the financing of electoral campaigns, which still poses problems. What are the interferences that are exerted in particular on social networks?
There are issues for the independent administrative authorities and it is important to see how we can gradually strengthen our system to prevent democracy from being called into question in these balances by foreign interference. In our view, it is essential that the fight against corruption becomes a national priority, a public policy that is expressed at the highest level. We hope that progress can be made in the coming years.