Jean-Yves Camus The Profiteers of Fear? Right-wing Populism and the COVID-19 Crisis in Europe France FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG Europe needs social democracy! Why do we really want Europe? Can we demonstrate to European citizens the opportunities offered by social politics and a strong social democracy in Europe? This is the aim of the new Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung project »Politics for Europe«. It shows that European integration can be done in a democratic, economic and socially balanced way and with a reliable foreign policy. The following issues will be particularly important: – Democratic Europe – Social and ecological transformation – Economic and social policy in Europe – Foreign and security policy in Europe We focus on these issues in our events and publications. We provide impetus and offer advice to decision-makers from politics and trade unions. Our aim is to drive the debate on the future of Europe forward and to develop specific proposals to shape central policy areas. With this publication series we want to engage you in the debate on the »Politics for Europe«! About this publication During the COVID crisis, France’s right-wing populist party Rassemblement Nation- al (RN) has yo-yoed between a strategy of “normalisation” as a legitimate political force and its “anti-establishment” roots blaming the French government for cover- ing up the real causes and diverting attention away from its shortcomings by trying to disempower its citizens by means of authoritarian measures. For the party, the economic reactions to the crisis and the EU bailout plan embody an “anti-national vision” which is robbing France of any possibility of taking effec- tive action against the crisis and undermining its national sovereignty. The RN’s fearmongering strategy has so far failed to strengthen the political power of the right-wing populists. Lastly, it will not be possible to weigh up the consequences of this strategy until there is a clearer idea of the economic and social fallout of the crisis. About the author Jean-Yves Camus is a political analyst and president of the Observatoire des radi- calités politiques (“Observatory of political radicalism”) at the think tank Fondation Jean-Jaurès. Responsible for this publication within the FES Dr Philipp Fink, head of FES in the Nordic Countries Dr Thomas Manz, head of FES in France Dr Tobias Mörschel, head of FES in Italy Further information on the project can be found here: fes.de/c19rex 1 The Profiteers of Fear? Right-wing Populism and the COVID-19 Crisis in Europe France The radical and extreme right-wing political parties in Europe The radical right likes the idea of “hidden causes”, according were quick to understand how the criticism of their respec- to which any historical event, any fact, even if verified, is in tive governments’ handling of the health crisis could be reality sparked by mysterious causes that “the powers that turned to their advantage. Depending on the countries, the be”, in particular the media and “the elite”, want to hide criticism varied with the number of victims of the epidemic1, from the people in order to conceal the decisive, under- and the more or less drastic character of the lockdown meas- ground and concerted action of “lobbies” said to be govern- ures. The radical and far right parties’ communication gener- ing the world. The RN, whose historical roots are clearly on ally revolved around three main topics: (1) sowing doubt as to the far right, has nevertheless undertaken, since 2011 and whether the epidemic actually originated from animals in Marine Le Pen’s arrival as its leader, to recentre its image and China, by introducing a number of theories involving plots; “normalise” its image in order to one day gain power, either (2) criticism of globalisation and the opening of borders, pre- alone or in coalition. It must pursue this initiative while re- sented as the main cause of the virus’s propagation; and (3) maining an anti-system party, opposed to both the left and the contradictory request for more stringent government ac- the right3. Accordingly, it could only respond to the measures tion to curb the epidemic, combined with criticism of the taken by Edouard Philippe’s government in a manner in line lockdown’s supposed infringement of personal freedoms. with its character as an anti-system group. Hence, Marine Le Pen’s decision as early as 30 March, to proclaim the idea of This note documents the manner, in which the Rassemble- the “State lie”, i.e. a “government strategy” consisting of ment National (RN) responded to the restrictions of individu- “hiding the level of weakness of the State, of our stocks, of al rights and public life enacted from mid- March to the end our country’s unpreparedness”, lying “about the borders, the of June2. The RN’s position statements were issued against supposedly unnecessary masks, the supposedly unnecessary the backdrop of the local council elections. The first round of tests themselves, rather than telling the truth”.4 Even in ex- voting took place as planned on 15 March, but the second ceptional circumstances, the RN could not adopt an attitude round, initially scheduled for 22 March, was pushed back to of national unity. It is therefore the only group to have gone 28 June because of the health-related state of emergency. so far in criticising the State, but it could not adopt a dis- This measure had such an impact on voter turnout (44.66% course as radical as that of the very small groups situated to in the first ballot; 41.86% in the second ballot) that it created its political right. They denounced the “totalitarian-type lock- quite a controversy. down”, which “ruins the country” and “under the fallacious pretext of public health” will allow the State to “give perma- It is important to bear in mind that the RN’s political response nent status to a large number of freedom-destroying meas- to the COVID epidemic will in all likelihood change, depend- ures.”5 ing on the outcome of the lockdown and the advent of a second wave of contamination. Here again, there is an elec- The RN was not only critical about the way the pandemic was toral context, since the departmental and regional elections being handled, it also expressed its views on the pandemic’s are still planned for March 2021, before a presidential elec- origin and the treatments used to stop its spread. The first tion in April 2022, for which Marine Le Pen, the President of topic stems directly from the RN voters’ propensity to believe the RN, announced back in January 2020 that she would be in alternative theories to the idea, accepted by the World running. Health Organization, that the virus was spread by human contacts following a contamination of animal origin. This propensity is above average, as shown by a survey published THE ANTI-SYSTEM STANCE 3 Opening her presidential campaign in 2017, at a meeting in Lyon on 1 In France, more than 31.000 deaths had been recorded at as end of 5 February, Marine Le Pen stated: „against the cash-driven right and August 2020. the cash-driven left, I‘m the candidate of the people‘s France“. 2 By government order, the so-called „confinement“, i.e. exit restric- 4 Statement by Marine Le Pen on the public radio France Info, 30 March tions for individuals and a partial economic lockdown came into force 2020. on 17 March and lasted until 11 May. Only after a transitional phase, 5 Cf. the interview with Thomas Joly on the Islamophobic and sovereignist the so-called „déconfinement“, was a certain normality restored from website Riposte laïque: https://ripostelaique.com/le-confinement- 15 June onwards. impose-un-controle-de-masse-de-type-sovietique-et-ruine-le-pays.html FRIEDRICH-EBERT-STIFTUNG – POLITICS FOR EUROPE 2 in March by IFOP: while 26% of French people believe that Both supposedly acted jointly to oust Prof. Raoult9 with the the virus was created intentionally in a laboratory, 40% of aim to establishing their exclusive power over the field of RN-voters believe that the coronavirus was produced “inten- medical research. Once again, an RN strategy can be seen at tionally” and 15% that it was produced “accidentally” (see work on two levels. On the one side, the caution of the par- Reichstadt/Fourquet 2020). Interviewed on 30 March, again ty’s president, who stated on the television channel LCI on 24 on France Info, Marine Le Pen said she “had no opinion on June that “If it is proved that chloroquine is effective and that the matter”, but that: “It is only common sense for people to the government avoided or even banned its use, we have all wonder whether this virus has a natural origin or whether it the ingredients of a major health scandal”. On the other, her might have leaked out of a laboratory”. It is therefore a non-interventionist stance towards other leaders of the stance that does not exclude the possibility of a voluntary or movement from publicly taking more clear-cut and radical accidental propagation from the P4 laboratory in Wuhan, positions. which, it should be pointed out, was built with French fund- ing and technology. In the end, the RN adopted a position expressed by the MEP Annika Bruna, who called for an inter- THE PROSPECT OF AN ORWELLIAN national committee of enquiry to be set up on the origins of SOCIETY: THE RADICAL RIGHT DEFENDING the epidemic, and asked China to give the committee access PUBLIC LIBERTIES to its territory, but favoured the hypothesis of an animal transmission connected to the activity of the “wet markets” A totalitarian society as described by George Orwell in his and human contact with wild animals that were unfit for novel “1984”, is underpinned by the omnipresence of a State human consumption6.