Publisher's Note — February 26, 2015, 3:00 pm

French Fiction Reveals Faux Democracy

“Houellebecq, who is neither radical nor left-wing, understands perfectly France’s political elites and its duped and disempowered electorate.”

A version of this column originally ran in the Providence Journal on February 26, 2015.

The French novelist Michel Houellebecq might seem an odd person for me to cite on the decline of Western democracy, but fiction writers sometimes see clearly what pundits and historians can’t seem to grasp. A writer of imagination can pierce the veil of political rhetoric and cut right to the chase. 

Houellebecq’s latest work, Soumission (Submission), describes a peaceful Muslim takeover of France’s secular education system via maneuverings by mainstream political parties that permit the candidate of a fictional Muslim Brotherhood party to win the presidency. It sounds patently absurd, but well-crafted absurdity often makes for the best satire. Embroidered throughout Houellebecq’s amusing tale is a penetrating analysis that couldn’t be more relevant to today’s corruption of the body politic. 

Last week, evidence of democratic decay was everywhere, but especially in France and the United States. In Paris, President François Hollande essentially suspended parliament by letting Prime Minister Manuel Valls use emergency powers to implement pro-business, pro-E.U. “reforms” that overrode left-wing objections within Hollande’s Socialist Party. By invoking Article 49-3 of the Constitution, the French government can pass any law it wants unless a majority in the National Assembly responds with a no-confidence vote, something not a single Socialist deputy supported on February 19, since a real rebellion would have caused the fall of the government. New elections would certainly have led to a defeat of Hollande’s increasingly unpopular party, which is pro-Europe to a fault and more than ever subservient to Germany and the arrogant Brussels bureaucracy that serves the European Central Bank in Frankfurt.

Yet Hollande and Valls are no different than the “opposition” UMP party of former president Nicolas Sarkozy and his prime minister, François Fillon. In a 2005 referendum, the French people voted down the proposed European Constitution, a document designed to further erode the national sovereignty of the European Union’s member states. So in December 2007, Sarkozy, Fillon, and the then-foreign minister, Bernard Kouchner, acting as “plenipotentiaries,” signed France to the Treaty of Lisbon, an E.U. agreement that instituted most of the rules contained in the rejected European Constitution. That the French parliament rubber-stamped the treaty two months later was just another display of contempt for the will of the majority. 

Houellebecq, who is neither radical nor left-wing, understands perfectly France’s political elites and its duped and disempowered electorate. In Soumission, he mocks “democratic alternation” between center left and center with deadpan humor: “Curiously, Western countries were extremely proud of this elective system that nevertheless was little more than power sharing between two rival gangs; sometimes they even launched wars to impose it on countries that didn’t share their enthusiasm.” In any event, “The real agenda of the UMP, like that of the Socialist Party, was the disappearance of France, its integration into the whole of a European federation.” Can anyone seriously argue the contrary?

Houellebecq’s new novel was published January 7, eerily coinciding with the Muslim terrorist attacks in Paris on Charlie Hebdo and a kosher supermarket, so in France his critique of faux democracy and Europe was overshadowed by the controversy over his critique of the Koran and Islamic culture, particularly the treatment of women. Since the book is not yet available in English, Soumission has gotten limited attention in America. But Adam Gopnik’s review in the New Yorker is very likely typical in its appraisal of Houellebecq as a “conservative” who “hates … Enlightenment ideas and practices” as well as “contemporary consumer society.”

This is at best an oversimplification, but Gopnik’s greater error is to overlook Houellebecq’s mockery of Western democratic pretensions. For Houellebecq’s send-up of Socialist/UMP oligarchy also applies to this country’s Democratic/Republican alternation, whose “bipartisan” spirit will soon play out in the campaign to pass the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a “trade” agreement that is fundamentally anti-democratic in conception and in practice. In order to negotiate TPP to the liking of his corporate supporters, President Barack Obama has requested “fast-track” authority from Congress, which would permit the White House to draft the deal in secret with representatives from eleven other countries. Once completed, Congress has to vote up or down on the entire text with no amendments from pesky congressmen who may be looking after the interests of their constituents. Like the North American Free Trade Agreement, TPP is mainly an investment agreement designed to help companies escape U.S. workplace laws and environmental regulations by moving production to countries such as Mexico, Vietnam, and Malaysia, where the labor is very cheap and the restrictions on pollution very weak.

And how will “liberal,” pro-labor Democrats vote on TPP? As with the Socialists in France, most of them, I wager, will vote no confidence in democracy and the working class before they’ll vote no confidence in their party leadership.

Share
Single Page

More from John R. MacArthur:

Publisher's Note November 10, 2017, 5:29 pm

Industrial Tourism

NAFTA is an investment contract that protects American and Canadian goods and interests against Mexican expropriation, regulation, and pestering by local authorities.

Publisher's Note October 5, 2017, 11:31 am

A Sad Heritage

Publisher's Note August 11, 2017, 5:34 pm

Le Chagrin

“Could I not avoid Trump and his bullshit, not even by crossing the Atlantic Ocean?”

Get access to 167 years of
Harper’s for only $45.99

United States Canada

CATEGORIES

THE CURRENT ISSUE

December 2017

Destroyer of Worlds

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Crossing Guards

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

“I am Here Only for Working”

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dear Rose

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Year of The Frog

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

Dead Ball Situation

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

view Table Content

FEATURED ON HARPERS.ORG

Article
Destroyer of Worlds·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

In February 1947, Harper’s Magazine published Henry L. Stimson’s “The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb.” As secretary of war, Stimson had served as the chief military adviser to President Truman, and recommended the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The terms of his unrepentant apologia, an excerpt of which appears on page 35, are now familiar to us: the risk of a dud made a demonstration too risky; the human cost of a land invasion would be too high; nothing short of the bomb’s awesome lethality would compel Japan to surrender. The bomb was the only option. Seventy years later, we find his reasoning unconvincing. Entirely aside from the destruction of the blasts themselves, the decision thrust the world irrevocably into a high-stakes arms race — in which, as Stimson took care to warn, the technology would proliferate, evolve, and quite possibly lead to the end of modern civilization. The first half of that forecast has long since come to pass, and the second feels as plausible as ever. Increasingly, the atmosphere seems to reflect the anxious days of the Cold War, albeit with more juvenile insults and more colorful threats. Terms once consigned to the history books — “madman theory,” “brinkmanship” — have returned to the news cycle with frightening regularity. In the pages that follow, seven writers and experts survey the current nuclear landscape. Our hope is to call attention to the bomb’s ever-present menace and point our way toward a world in which it finally ceases to exist.

Illustration by Darrel Rees. Source photographs: Kim Jong-un © ITAR-TASS Photo Agency/Alamy Stock Photo; Donald Trump © Yuri Gripas/Reuters/Newscom
Article
Crossing Guards·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

The Ambassador Bridge arcs over the Detroit River, connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, the southernmost city in Canada. Driving in from the Canadian side, where I grew up, is like viewing a panorama of the Motor City’s rise and fall, visible on either side of the bridge’s turquoise steel stanchions. On the right are the tubular glass towers of the Renaissance Center, headquarters of General Motors, and Michigan Central Station, the rail terminal that closed in 1988. On the left is a rusted industrial corridor — fuel tanks, docks, abandoned warehouses. I have taken this route all my life, but one morning this spring, I crossed for the first time in a truck.

Illustration by Richard Mia
Article
“I am Here Only for Working”·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

But the exercise of labor is the worker’s own life-activity, the manifestation of his own life. . . . He works in order to live. He does not even reckon labor as part of his life, it is rather a sacrifice of his life.

— Karl Marx

Photograph from the United Arab Emirates by the author. This page: Ruwais Mall
Article
The Year of The Frog·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

To look at him, Sweet Macho was a beautiful horse, lean and strong with muscles that twitched beneath his shining black coat. A former racehorse, he carried himself with ceremony, prancing the field behind our house as though it were the winner’s circle. When he approached us that day at the edge of the yard, his eyes shone with what might’ve looked like intelligence but was actually a form of insanity. Not that there was any telling our mother’s boyfriend this — he fancied himself a cowboy.

“Horse 1,” by Nine Francois. Courtesy the artist and AgavePrint, Austin, Texas
Article
Dead Ball Situation·

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

What We Think About When We Think About Soccer, by Simon Critchley. Penguin Books. 224 pages. $20.

Begin, as Wallace Stevens didn’t quite say, with the idea of it. I so like the idea of Simon Critchley, whose books offer philosophical takes on a variety of subjects: Stevens, David Bowie, suicide, humor, and now football — or soccer, as the US edition has it. (As a matter of principle I shall refer to this sport throughout as football.) “All of us are mysteriously affected by our names,” decides one of Milan Kundera’s characters in Immortality, and I like Critchley because his name would seem to have put him at a vocational disadvantage compared with Martin Heidegger, Søren Kierkegaard, or even, in the Anglophone world, A. J. Ayer or Richard Rorty. (How different philosophy might look today if someone called Nobby Stiles had been appointed as the Wykeham Professor of Logic.)

Tostão, No. 9, and Pelé, No. 10, celebrate Carlos Alberto’s final goal for Brazil in the World Cup final against Italy on June 21, 1970, Mexico City © Heidtmann/picture-alliance/dpa/AP Images

Chances that a gynecologist in Italy refuses to perform abortions for religious reasons:

7 in 10

A newly discovered microsnail can easily pass through the eye of a needle.

Moore’s wife published a letter of support signed by more than 50 pastors, and four of those pastors said they either had never seen the letter or had seen it before Moore was accused of sexual assault and asked to have their names removed.

Subscribe to the Weekly Review newsletter. Don’t worry, we won’t sell your email address!

HARPER’S FINEST

Report — From the June 2013 issue

How to Make Your Own AR-15

= Subscribers only.
Sign in here.
Subscribe here.

By

"Gun owners have long been the hypochondriacs of American politics. Over the past twenty years, the gun-rights movement has won just about every battle it has fought; states have passed at least a hundred laws loosening gun restrictions since President Obama took office. Yet the National Rifle Association has continued to insist that government confiscation of privately owned firearms is nigh. The NRA’s alarmism helped maintain an active membership, but the strategy was risky: sooner or later, gun guys might have realized that they’d been had. Then came the shootings at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, and at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, followed swiftly by the nightmare the NRA had been promising for decades: a dedicated push at every level of government for new gun laws. The gun-rights movement was now that most insufferable of species: a hypochondriac taken suddenly, seriously ill."

Subscribe Today