While the French elections arguably offer little choice for those looking for radical eco-political options, there is a tendency to see in them — as in other recent political shifts — something that is altogether more negative than it need be.
Slavoj Zizek, for instance, argues that the choice between Macron and Le Pen is a “false choice” and that the reasonable thing to do is to abstain from it altogether. (Yanis Varoufakis provides a powerful response here.)
But the choice in these elections was between 11 candidates (along with the two alternative options of spoiling one’s ballot or abstaining from voting). If it is a “false choice,” one should ask, is it because (a) none of the 11 candidates (or 13 options) provided any “real” choice, (b) none of the 4 (or 6) candidates with a real chance of winning provided any “real” choice, or (c) the candidates that, for Zizek, provided a “real” choice have lost?
If it’s just the latter, then the point could just as easily be turned on its head. Given that Zizek would likely see Melenchon as a “real” choice — non-establishment, anti-neoliberal, leftist, etc. — it’s actually pretty amazing that Melenchon came within 6% of the first-place winner and 2% of the runner-up (and therefore almost made it to the final round). Similarly, it is amazing that a self-declared socialist non-member of either of the two main U.S. parties (Bernie Sanders) came rather close to winning the nomination of one of those parties (and ultimately, perhaps, the presidency).
The idea that the choice is false, that the system is rigged, and so on, is a narrative that doesn’t at all convey the level of volatility and openness that democratic political systems are demonstrating these days. Is that not the real story in the political world today? If it is, then there will be debacles and radical slides backward, but there will also likely be openings for changes that, just a few years ago, would have been considered extremely unlikely.
The point is to prepare for those openings by working toward the kinds of changes we would like to see.
there is an openness/volatility reminiscent of the “world” wars of the last century but Zizek isn’t wrong that business as usual is a disaster in terms of climate change, refugees, economies etc.
he is just wrong to think that we can organize the kinds of transnational agreements that would be of a scale/impact to make a substantial difference in such matters, but then so is Yanis…
Yes, openness/volatility does not necessarily lead to positive outcomes. All the more important to do the groundwork that could tweak them in that direction. It’s not a time to feel powerless or to complain about false choices; it’s a time to do what we can while the window to change remains open.
john lewis london gift list
On political volatility « immanence