A few days ago, in a story which received little press in the United States, a young French woman discovered that she had been placed on the secretive "no fly list" when she was blocked from flying for a vacation to New York with her husband and two children. No reason was given, but her name is Aida Alic. On her passport, with her last name first, it reads "Alic Aida" which, if you mispronounce it, sounds like Al Qaeda. We can only guess that some overzealous US official (or poorly programmed software) decided that this 33 year old woman was a dangerous threat to the United States.
This received very little coverage in the US for no other reason than people have grown used to the secretive no-fly list being used to arbitrarily deny people the right to travel. This complacency is disturbing, but it's not a surprise. As an American living in France — and having lived in several European countries since 2006 — I am now standing on the outside looking in and I think the US could stand to borrow a few ideas from France, even dangerously subversive ones such as flirting with Democracy.
The US is a 1.5 party system
First, let's clear up the word "democracy". Most of us have probably had that conversation where the US is referred to as a democracy and some wag invariably pipes up "we're a republic, not a democracy." I love that little reminder. It's one of those rare phrases that is simultaneously both correct (sort of) and relevant while still contributing absolutely no useful information to the conversation. But since we're talking about democracy, let's define what it should really mean: a government by the people where people vote directly for laws or for representatives who decide for them. But let me add a caveat: voting means nothing if you can't vote for who you want. It might seem like you can in the US, but let me digress for a moment.
No one seriously respects the recent "elections" in North Korea because North Koreans either vote for the single candidate for each position or they must cross out the name and write in another name and risk getting jailed (or worse) for it. However, it might come as a surprise to know that China has nine political parties, however, eight of them are subservient to the CPC (Communist Party of China) and China is aggressively fighting to prevent any real choice in elections.
So clearly having multiple political parties does not make for a democracy and some cases it's no better than a one-party system.
In the US Congress, since 1975 neither the House nor the Senate have ever had more than two sitting members who were not Republicans or Democrats. With 535 members, is the US really a vibrant democracy when we can never have more than one-half of one percent of Congress representing other viewpoints?
But maybe, just maybe, Americans march in lockstep and simply wouldn't dream of voting for someone who's not R&D? Well, polls suggest that this is definitely not the case and in reality, something called Duverger's Law suggests that with a simple "winner take all" system, you'll wind up with only two choices — and that ain't a choice. Compared to the situation here in Europe, the US is ruled by a right-wing and a far right-wing political party (in terms of economics; in terms of social policies, the US is somewhat middle of the road) and it's not going to change any time soon. In fact, the R&D have worked hand in hand to ensure that no third party in the US can gain consistent access to the ballot (here's the relevant excerpt from that book). Of course, those of you familiar with the recent US is an Oligarchy (pdf) study already knew this.
France has a thriving multi-party system
So what does that have to do with France?
First off, the following should not be interpreted as "France does everything right." After all, I tell my French friends that the president, Hollande, is a pic à glace sur le Titanic (an ice pick on the Titanic). The French economy is still struggling, racist populism still rears its ugly head and Hollande's most significant victory appears to be a confiscatory 75% "millionaire's income tax" that even his more ardent supporters admit will do nothing to help the economy.
But how did Hollande get elected? France uses a two-round voting system. In France, we have about 35,000 mayors and 10,000 elected officials who can nominate you for the French presidency. Get 500 of them (roughly 1%) to nominate you and you're automatically on the ballot. Further, these 500 have to be somewhat geographically diverse, ensuring that a strong local candidate must have some broad base of support across France.
In 2012, we had ten candidates from ten political parties who qualified to run for the presidency. If none of them win an outright majority in the first round of voting, the top two candidates compete in a second round run-off. This point is crucial to understanding the French political system.
Now let's look at the US race between Romney and Obama. I'm sure that you're aware that since 1988, the Presidential "debates" (they aren't debates) are coordinated by the R&D to exclude other candidates. Further, our grand democratic tradition involved 2 billion dollars in campaign spending.
However, in the French presidential election, the ten French presidential candidates all received equal air time, by law. Everyone from Hollande, who won over 28% of first round votes to Jacques Cheminade, who won 0.25% of first round votes was allowed to have a place at the table ... by law.
And how much did the campaigns spend? Hollande and Sarkozy spent $54 million between the two of them. And France fights hard to avoid the influence of money corrupting their politics. There are no Super PACs and both corporations and unions are forbidden to donate money to candidates. And while the US Supreme Court is going to decide whether or not political candidates are allowed to lie, France has a different approach:
For better and worse, France puts égalité in politics before the liberté of candidates to invest big bucks in mass marketing displays of what little fraternité they feel for one another. Indeed, flesh-flaying attack ads frequent in U.S. elections are illegal under French rules. Not only is buying French airspace for political commercials forbidden; so is disparaging rivals in any electoral advertising that is allowed. Turning a campaign around with an effective but expensive Willie Horton, Swift Boat, or Morning In America adjust isn’t an option in France.
And another strong plank in French election law: the media is forbidden to publish results of exit polls before the voting closes. Spectres of discouraged voters staying home due to media reports quietly go away.
But what about Le Pen?
So all of this sounds well and good, but surely some of you remember the 2002 elections where Jean-Marie Le Pen, a far-right politician — popular with neo-Nazis and the European white power movement — made it to the second round of the French presidential voting. The world was absolutely horrified, as they rightly should have been, but few, if any, have any understanding of how such an atrocity could occur.
In France, the far right National Front party of France typically seems to have between 10% to 20% support of the French. There are many reasons for this, not all of which are racism, but nonetheless, the NF is only a short step away from being neo-Nazis. During the 2002 first round, Lionel Jospin, the socialist candidate, was considered the front runner against Jacques Chirac, the sitting French president under the Rally for the Republic party (which later merged with others to form the Union for a Popular Movement, a centre-right party roughly analogous to US Democrats). Because Jospin was so heavily favored, many politicians who might have otherwise supported him threw their weight behind other parties, assuming that Jospin would sail through the first round of voting. So much of Jospin's voting base was eroded by this effort that Le Pen's steadfast supporters held fast and handed Le Pen 16.9% of the vote against Jospin's 16.2% (versus Chirac's 19.9%). Thus, Le Pen and Chirac went on to the second round of voting.
Many French voters detested Chirac, but nonetheless voted for him. As a result, Chirac went on to win over 82% of the vote, resulting in the the greatest landslide win in French presidential history.
Today, Jean-Marie Le Pen has resigned and the National Front is run by his daughter, Marine Le Pen, who I otherwise think of as the pretty face of French hate. She's toned down the rhetoric of her father, is less obviously militant, and has switched from being overtly anti-Jewish to being anti-Muslim, a political tone that resonates with many, even in the US.
The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
Clearly Le Pen is the "ugly" in French politics. Many would argue that giving radical fringe groups free air time on television is part of the bad of French politics, but the good is that voters have choice. Since 1958, the French presidency has been held by politicians from the Union for the New Republic, the Democratic Centre, the Union for the Defence of the Republic, the Socialist Party, the Rally for the Republic, and the Union for a popular movement. That, of course, is a gross oversimplification as some of those parties reformed as other parties.
Today French politics is dominated by the Socialists (who nonetheless support capitalism) and the UMP, though many other parties exist and even hold seats at the national level. They have a voice, they have influence, and while it's certainly not a perfect system, in America, where possibly one third of Americans have a favorable view of Socialism, their voice is never heard.
Yes, this means that people like Le Pen have a voice on the national stage, but as many Americans are quick to point out: free speech means nothing if only those you support enjoy it.
Do Americans forget that Senator Robert Byrd was a Klansmen? Do people remember George Wallace? What about David Duke?
This isn't just past history. While one study of Tea Party political rally signs concludes that the Tea Party isn't particularly racist, another study of Tea Party member motivations concluded that they are. And how can we forget the popular Ron Paul's incredibly racist newsletters or his son, Rand Paul, and his ties to racists? The ad hoc restrictions against third-party candidates effectively marginalizes many of the more overtly racist groups in America, but it also marginalizes many progressive groups.
France, while not perfect, at least allows other groups to have a voice. America should consider doing the same.