“We are for making an agreement, not for entering a religion” vis-à-vis La France insoumise, launches the environmental MEP David Cormand Friday April 29 at noon on franceinfo. He criticizes “a hegemonic political culture” of the Insoumis, who must agree to switch to “a culture of leadership”.
franceinfo: Do you see a hegemonic risk of LFI?
David Corman: Yes, but it is in the political culture of LFI. It is a political force which was built theoretically from its origin on the desire to supplant the old parties and in a direct relationship with the people. This is what she theorized in a hegemonic relationship where, basically, intermediary bodies are set aside. It’s in his original DNA. The political question that arises today from my point of view, now that she has succeeded in the campaign and the score she made in the presidential election, is: does she keep this DNA and this hegemonic culture, or is it moving to a slightly different culture that I would call leadership, which involves tolerating, accepting diversities and rising to challenges. It’s not simple. She is the one who has the responsibility to do it because she came out on top. And then, it is also up to the others to agree to think about a coalition.
Do you see any signs of progress?
I do not participate in discussions. Jean-Luc Mélenchon says that there will be parliamentary groups: excuse me, but that’s the least we can do. This is not progress, it is just respect for our institutions. On the other hand, what challenged me was when Jean-Luc Mélenchon asked the French to elect him directly as Prime Minister, there was a subject there. In the parliamentary institution, it is not Parliament that is responsible to the Prime Minister, it is the Prime Minister who is responsible to Parliament. This is where there is a shift in saying: you will not exist politically apart from me. This logic there, we refute it. We admit that Jean-Luc Mélenchon arrived at the head of the left-green bloc in the presidential election: if we were to be able to build an alternative majority, it would be legitimate for him to be the Prime Minister, but he would be responsible to a majority. We are for making an agreement, not for entering a religion.
Can you reach an agreement despite the disagreements on the substance, particularly on the European Union and Ukraine?
These are two fundamental subjects. We have fundamental differences of appreciation on what should be a geopolitics, a diplomacy of the 21st century with the climatic stakes, which cannot be a regression towards a geopolitical vision which would date from the second part of the 20th century. In the same way, we have a different approach to the European Union, it is well known. We are federalists and believe that to act for the planet, we need the critical mass of the European Union. But where we agree is that the European Union as it is today must evolve with a balance of power. Nevertheless, we have a slightly different angle on the definition of the term disobedience. We do not want to say that we will disobey everything because otherwise we are in the logic of someone like Viktor Orban [président hongrois] who wants to disobey the rule of law. On the other hand, if it is a question of questioning a certain number of oriented dogmas such as austerity, we agree to challenge it. The devil hides in the details, but these are fundamental subjects on the vision or not of the future of France within the European Union or not.