Jean Lassalle and Nicolas Dupont-Aignan have very different profiles and proposals but they find themselves on one observation: for them, the presidential election is distorted. These two candidates are, for then, credited with a low score in the polls of intention to vote. Consequence: until Monday, under the rules of ARCOM, they benefited from a low speaking time in the media. For Jean Lassalle, no doubt: it is the sign that we are no longer really in a democracy.
Sunday, on the set of Questions Politiques, for franceinfo and France inter, the deputy of Pyrénées-Atlantiques, called for resistance: “Resist the system which has replaced the marvelous democratic model. Let’s resist this fierce system which is a soft dictatorship”.Very strong words, of course. And yet, last week, in the 4 Truths, on France 2, Jean Lassalle went even further: “France is going through one of the most misguided campaigns in its history. Everything is false. I think that a certain number of our compatriots appreciated that I said a certain number of things, that I assumed them, even if it meant paying for them. expensive price. We have fifteen days ahead of us, I can have a counter-scandal to put me down, it can happen. Whoever told the truth must be executed.
Exchange of views on @France Inter…
Full video ➡️ https://t.co/USW17D9qsF pic.twitter.com/37O2VMjGUq
— Jean Lassalle (@jeanlassalle) March 29, 2022
The whole campaign would be fake. Those who, like him, would tell the truth risk being targeted by cases, in order to silence them. As you can see, we have left the domain of vague and vaporous denunciation to enter fully into that of machination, even conspiracy.
Does Nicolas Dupont-Aignan go that far? On the form, no, the president of Debout la France is never so precise. Basically, however, it’s about the same. Sunday in Political Questions, and Wednesday morning on franceinfo, he said: “The French feel very well that everything is done to stifle the campaign. It is a rigged election, it is an election of an oligarchy, an election which aims to silence people who think differently. I ask the French to ‘to vote, to thwart the trap of this rigged election, it’s up to them to ‘destroy’ it. I say to the French, wake up!”
Presidential ➡️ “I am a candidate because I think the French do not want to find the duel” Macron – Le Pen, says Nicolas Dupont-Aignan. “My little finger tells me that we can take out Emmanuel Macron from the 1st round. The French are disgusted. I beg them to go vote.” pic.twitter.com/y5Izi8vTUP
— franceinfo (@franceinfo) March 30, 2022
The election would be rigged, we would have to wake up. We are in exactly the same type of denunciation: the French would be victims of manipulation, which would deprive them of a real election. This kind of talk can hardly be characterized as anything other than conspiracy rhetoric. Might as well set foot in the dish: what credit can we give to this type of denunciation?
To answer this question, it is necessary to understand the main process on which these discourses are based. Both pivot on the idea that there would be a “system” that would be in control. In political science, this is called the reification of social purpose. Reification is the fact of considering as a concrete and active entity what is, in reality, the separate and uncoordinated action of a large number of individuals. When we speak of the “system”, we imagine individuals in the shadows, effectively manipulating the entire apparatus of the state.
The realities are much more diffuse than that. There are, in France, a large number of political, economic, administrative and media players who have power, it is true, and exercise it to ensure that divergent interests prevail, whether in terms of their personal interest or their personal vision of the general interest. The switch to conspiracy is the moment when we think that there is “one” system, coordinated, which pulls all the strings. And that, it seems to me, is what Jean Lasalle and Nicolas Dupont-Aignan are insinuating.
But beware, this is not a reason not to ask questions. For example: do the ARCOM rules, voted in 2016 under the government of François Hollande, which limit equal speaking time between candidates to only two weeks, allow for a fair democratic debate? This is a serious question, which we are entitled to ask. It is still necessary, for that, not to use all his speaking time to vilify an allegedly rigged election.