The Extreme right and Democracy - Christian Delarue

The Extreme right and Democracy

Far-right ideas (already) “a crisis of Democracy” and moment of a new stage in Democracy

Towards Fascism or Democracy ?

Talk (in French) by Christian Delarue - National Counsel of the MRAP (Mouvrmrnt against Racism and for Friendship between the Peoples (commission against the extreme right)), Président of CADTM France, member of the Democratic Space of ATTAC France, Union Organiser (UFR Finances CGT) anti-fascist (CALED 35 CGT member of VISA) and at Ripostes antifascistes (Anti-fascist Response for CADTM France)

– 3 march 2026, partly revisited during a discussion event on 25 March in Rennes, where the theme was broader (Endless wars around the world and the rise of fascism in nations).

https://entreleslignesentrelesmots.wordpress.com/2026/04/16/idees-dextreme-droite-crise-de-la-democratie-moment-dune-nouvelle-etape-de-la-democratisation/

Summary

I – Fascist and similar ideas
II – spheres of democratisation

As regards the fundamental, inspiring ideas, I begin with Erich Fromm’s analyses of the destructiveness of fascism for the negative aspect, and move on to the counter-response, drawing on the analyses of Jean Ziegler and his 1985 book, which sets forth the necessary ‘reason of solidarity and internationalism’ against the ‘National interest’ and that of transnational capital in Vive le pouvoir ou les délices de la Raison d’État.

Following the two ‘targeted’ presentations by Cimade and the LDH (which I shall not repeat here, concerning the survival of people subject to an OQTF (order to quit French territory) and Cimade’s campaign for the local elections), my remarks will focus on far-right ideas and democracy.

There are two issues to address : firstly, where do far-right ideas begin and end, and secondly, what is democracy ? As definitions are less fixed than they appear, I shall speak more in terms of dynamics or processes than of a stable state. I shall therefore discuss the cycles of fascistisation and the cycles of democratisation. Fascistisation as a process must therefore be distinguished from fascism proper. I shall return to this point.

Before turning to France, and without dwelling on the point, it is worth noting that the rise of fascism is not a uniquely French phenomenon but a very global one. There may therefore be – a hypothesis in the absence of concrete analysis – a link to be drawn with the rise of neoliberalism since the Reagan and Thatcher years, from 1979 onwards, and with what trade unionists refer to as the ‘Thatcherisation of the world’. It should be noted that the commonly cited date of 1979 for neoliberalism has a history : there were indeed coups d’état and dictatorships in Uruguay (1973), Chile (1973) and Argentina (1976), orchestrated under Operation Condor and thus by the United States of America. This is one hypothesis regarding the spread, particularly in recent decades, of highly authoritarian, even fascist, regimes or movements across the world. We will soon have a report on an international meeting that took place in Porto Alegre (Brasil) which will take stock of these authoritarian or fascist political movements or regimes.

Another connection can be drawn between a recent trend – the rise in the number of wars (externally, on a global scale) – and the emergence of fascist tendencies (internally, on a national scale). I shall not go into further detail on this aspect, which was the subject of the presentation given in Rennes on 25 March at the invitation of Yves Juin on behalf of the CLE.

In France, as elsewhere, far-right ideas do not just appear, they develop. It is therefore important to examine their origins, and thus the national history from which they stem.

To give a brief overview, let’s outline some far-right ideas so we know exactly what we’re talking about. I’ll present them in the form of ‘blocks of violent thought’. These include :

1) the spectrum of racist ideas and acts, stemming from identity tensions, anti-immigration sentiments, xenophobia, etc ;
2) the whole range of sexist, chauvinist, masculinist, homophobic and anti-LGBTQI+ attitudes ;
3) the classist bloc, that is the deeply and vehemently anti-social, pro-wealthy ideas that favour holders of capital, coupled with an anti-trade union, anti-collectivisation and anti-protestation stance ;
4) An anti-democratic, pro-elite, pro-authoritarian bloc (promoting hierarchy alongside inequality), linked to Spencer’s ideas (social Darwinism) ;
5) a body of anti-environmental ideas that have become intertwined with a historical body of work spanning several decades, which we must cover here very briefly. It is a vast subject. There is plenty to consider.
Before Marine Le Pen’s National Rally (RN - 2018), there was Jean-Marie Le Pen’s National Front (FN). JM Le Pen was known to have practised torture in Algeria when it was a French colony and was convicted on numerous occasions for various racist remarks [2].

The RN, established in October 1972, was founded with the involvement of members of the OAS, who were pro-colonialists, racist targeting North Africans and black Africans, and also anti-Asian (since the war in Indo-china prior to the Algerian War). For more on the OAS, see the now somewhat dated book by Jacques DELARUE and other more recent works. However, it is also worth noting the presence of another faction, one that is highly anti-Semitic and Spencerian (social Darwinism targeting the weak), which dates back to Pétainism – the ideology recently revived by Ms Vassal of Marseille, with her invocation of ‘work, family, nation’.

‘Work, family, nation’ : Here we have a dual ideology : that of the leader and that of the hierarchy, which is superimposed upon the harmful reality of severe economic and social inequalities. Let us take this further : ‘work and family’ give rise to a capitalist-patriarchal system that thus combines two powerful forms of domination, both in the workplace and within the family : in short, one does not escape the exploitation of the labour force by moving from one sphere to the other : a double whammy ! And the third term, ‘nation’, serves as a reminder that the citizen is absent and that the nation is conceived as ethno-racial, with a heavy national-racism targeting everything of non-national sources, and even, for some, against all that is not white or culturally Catholic. Colonialism continues in the form of racism, more or less overt. Of course, not forgetting anti-Semitism !

The CNCDH presents a graph (the one I show pupils when I am invited to schools) illustrating the trends in discrimination against six categories of victimised groups, starting with the Roma, who face the highest levels of discrimination, followed by five other groups, listed here in no particular order : Black people, Arabs, Jews, Muslims and Asians.

The MRAP has published a special ‘2026 local elections’ document online which offers suggestions for combating racism.

I - FASCIST AND SIMILAR IDEAS

– A) Spheres of fascisation

Fascism in the strict sense refers to Nazi Germany and Mussolini’s Italy. However, there are other dictatorial political movements and regimes that emerged across Europe and which form the second or third tier of regimes to be rejected on account of their harshly authoritarian political practices : Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, the Greece of the Colonels, Pétain’s France, etc.

The authoritarian figure is of the Bonapartist-Caesarist type. It follows a historical trend that exists in France and elsewhere. André and Francine Demichel have identified four types of dictatorship : fascism, Bonapartism, rule by elites, and military rule. In all four cases, there is a rise in domination and oppression, but also a breakdown of the rule of law, with arbitrary arrests and detentions, corruption and predation. On the subject of the rule of law, I invite you to listen to the magistrate Magali Lafourcade, who was a guest on two radio programmes recently.

Today’s National Rally (RN) is a national-populist party with a violent rhetoric targeting immigrants (an anti-humanist ‘national preference’) and protecting the ever-richer wealthy, whilst targeting ‘the left’, particularly those advocating for social, ecological and democratic transformation, as well as anti-racist, feminist and pro-socialist movements. It would not be a question of establishing a totalitarian state and creating a ‘new man’ (the core fascist circle). But with the RN and its groups carrying out the dirty work behind the scenes (from the ‘back office’), the rule of law would be even further eroded than it is today, particularly due to an ultra-repressive police force, bearing in mind that over the past ten years, the French police have become much more repressive – noticably since 2016 and the protests against new labour laws. This resurgence of repression is not subjected to criminal sanctions at the level normally required. I shall say no more on this point : there is much to discuss.

B) The violence of fascist ideas :

1) So-called ‘societal’ violence refers to racism in all its forms (see the CNCDH, cited above), sexism (and masculinism, virilism, etc.) and LGBTQI-phobia, as well as the glorification of discrimination : 26 unlawful criteria are listed in France. The violence inherent in fascist ideas is evident, but we must go further.

À l’articulation du sociétal et du social, on trouve le classisme qui est pensé d’une part comme mépris social, y compris par un égal, et discriminations sociales mais aussi, dans un autre sens beaucoup plus fort et plus large, qui se comprend comme lourde domination de classe, celle des classes possédantes contre toutes les autres. On cite souvent dans l’altermondialisme le 1% d’en-haut, riche et possédant du fait de la finance accumulée sur eux, contre les 99% d’en-bas, soit l’ensemble des classes sociales populaires, cadres compris.

That said, there is also ‘inter-group’ violence of varying intensity (not just physical confrontations) that is simultaneously racist, sexist and classist, with a combined or intersectional dimension in working-class neighbourhoods. The term ‘inter-categorical’ warrants clarification : this ‘grassroots’ violence, is largely supported by the powers that be, notably by the police hierarchy in terms of the repressive and violent institutional aspect, and is advocated by right-wing politicians from Darmanin to Retailleau and others.

Due to economic and social inequalities and various forms of discrimination, there is violence in civil society – directed against the Yellow Vests, in working-class neighbourhoods (the kind shown to us by the mainstream media), and so on – but there is also a form of violence that looms large over all the others : institutional violence. It is worth noting that a macho and violent culture is naturally produced by repressive state apparatuses (police and army) with a predominantly male workforce, and less so by state apparatuses with a social remit – even if this ‘social’ aspect is now in decline – such as education and healthcare. Is it, then, gender composition that matters from this perspective ? Cultural anthropology (see Martine Boudet) leans towards this view, whilst acknowledging that there are also ‘feminocrats’ (a term from the Feminist Manifesto of the 99%) who reproduce classist and masculine violence in the upper echelons of the state and politics. Is it the very nature of these repressive state apparatuses that determines this ? Another matter for debate.

2) In the strictly anti-social (classist) sphere, the RN and other forces build on what is already being done, mostly on the right but also on the left – that ‘left’ which no longer advocates any significant social, ecological, democratic or secular struggle, having become too deeply entrenched within the institutions of the Fifth Republic and the dominant economic and social system. (See the 1991 Arche congress : ‘Capitalism is our horizon’)

The aim for the RN and others is therefore to further dismantle labour laws – for example, by promoting Sarkozy’s famous slogan ‘to earn more work more’ – and to further erode civil servant’s status, which has already been severely undermined by the employment of non-permanent staff outside the competitive recruitment process. This spreads precarious, poorly paid work. The RN is building on a process of class destruction that is already underway.

It will also involve further dismantling of public services – those directly serving the social needs of the population (housing, healthcare, transport, education, etc.) that are not driven by profit – as well as dismantling the National Insurance system, which is already unrecognisable compared to the post-war blueprint (socialisation) and even to what was actually achieved. This classism clearly points to a deadly destructiveness denounced by Erich Fromm as part of a cycle of fascistisation.

Even more seriously, this will involve banning trade unions, trade union meetings, and trade union gatherings or demonstrations. And even if there are no formal bans, people will be prevented from exercising these rights to social resistance and social change. This has already happened, and not just in France.

Fascism very often regards communists and Marxists of all persuasions as its main enemies, after racists. This hostility knows no bounds. Indeed, it extends beyond the ranks of orthodox fascists to take hold within a vast range of authoritarian right-wing circles.

II – SPHERES OF DEMOCRATISATION

A) The theoretical framework of democratisation : establishing ever greater democracy.

1) The problem of defining democracy in a technical sense

This can be illustrated, in a fairly educational way, using a series of circles ranging from limited democracy to full democracy. The four circles have been simplified here simply to show a democratic continuum that counters the disenfranchisement of populations.

a) First circle : Citizens vote. This represents a very limited first democratic achievement. Consulting the people to appoint leaders is far from being a natural occurrence in history. Nowadays, almost everywhere, women vote, but not foreign residents – except for those from EU within the EU. Within this system, what is regulated is fair competition between candidates. Sometimes speaking time is limited. Here we find two elites, R. Aron and J. Schumpeter, defending this representative electoral democracy on the pretext of the people’s incompetence. See the final chapter of J-J. Goblot’s Essais de critique marxiste on this point.

b) Second circle : The populace is more involved, as they are asked for their opinion on a specific issue or must answer with a simple ‘yes’ or ‘no’. Votes are therefore cast more for a particular candidate than for a policy proposal. This remains within a limited democratic framework, akin to a referendum.

c) Third circle : The people are called upon somewhat more. After several months of ‘deliberative democracy’, during which they consult and discuss matters at neighbourhood meetings or after rallies, they will cast their vote. This happened in 1946, but also and above all in 2004 and 2005, culminating in the ‘no’ vote on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe (TCEU) on 29 May. We know that this ‘no’ was not respected, but that is another matter. It should be noted that this can be used to resolve local issues

d) Fourth circle : The people are called upon to exercise oversight over elected representatives, at least on a provisional basis, regarding certain decisions. Recall is also possible here. This democratic ideal is increasingly being called for in various ways today.

2) The problem of identifying the historical lineage of the democratic model to be chosen in French history

Three such lineages can be identified (as opposed to the two identified by O. Besancenot in En finir avec les présidents) :

a) the historical Bonapartist tradition that led to the concept of ‘Head of State’ for Pétain. Outside France, this is referred to as the ‘Bonapartist-Caesarist’ authoritarian tradition. It is an authoritarian (and, where applicable, colonialist) tradition capable of giving rise to various forms of dictatorship ;

b) the communalist tradition stemming from the Paris Commune of 1871, which gave rise to ‘democratic councils’, self-management and even the soviets (in the true sense of the term), and which serves as the foundation for participatory democracy or deliberative democracy ;

c) the solidarist tradition, originating with Léon Bourgeois—who formalised the so-called solidarist doctrine—and Alfred Fouillé—who adapted it to encompass the concept of ‘social democracy’—occupies a position between liberal democracy and the socialist democracy of the Marxists.

It is clear that the term ‘social’ must now be understood in a broad sense : for it would seem today that it also encompasses fiscal aspects (given that the wealthy pay little or no tax), territorial aspects (the need for public services in rural areas – and less drug abuse and violence in working-class neighbourhoods) and ecological aspects (several such issues fall within this category).

‘Social democracy’ is also secular, democratic and inclusive (free from racism, sexism and classism) : it establishes mechanisms to eradicate racism and foster solidarity between generations and between rich and poor, with a strong welfare state – the ‘left hand’ of the state – which emerged after the war in 1945–46 in the form of socialisation (Social Security) and nationalisation (as a form of public ownership that could evolve into social ownership).

B) What are the options ?

1) The reality of a crisis :

The French are deeply distrustful of their current democratic system : 78% believe it is not working properly and 26% are losing faith in politics altogether. Here is an excerpt from ‘Democracy in Crisis’ on The Conversation website : “One of the demands is a need for authority : 73% want “a real leader in France to restore order”, compared with 60% in Germany and Italy. This is coupled with a marked desire for the implementation of direct democracy, with strong support among the French for referendums and for a more horizontal and participatory democracy”.

2) There are two risks and one reply possible :

a) Two risks

– Seeking, alongside the RN, to establish an authoritarian regime of the Bonapartist-Caesarist variety. This would amount to a modernised version of Pétain’s regime : Work, Family, Nation in a polluted world under ultra-capitalism.

– Simply wanting to preserve the current system, which is so undemocratic and in such a sorry state, without changing a thing, even though the accumulation of terms of office – both vertically (over the years) and horizontally (here and elsewhere) – is a very serious problem with multiple consequences : remaining in political office for 20 to 50 years encourages cronyism and, by extension, corruption : this is a proven fact (see article in ‘The Conversation’). It also creates – on top of that – a caste that is very much detached from the people but close to the most influential economic leaders.

b) Possible response : Democratise :

The subject is vaste and deserves much thought. In a nutshell, and to summarise the two aspects described :

– from a technical and ethical standpoint : limit the accumulation of electoral mandates, both horizontally (here and there – a process already underway) and, above all, vertically (a maximum of two six-year terms ?) ! The remuneration of elected representatives must also be limited. Fight against corruption (see Noel Pons, Alain Deneault or Pierre Lascoume). Develop citizens’ conventions, consider a different kind of referendum : the citizens’ initiative referendum (RIC). Go further : introduce oversight of elected representatives, consider possible recall procedures ;

– in terms of the democratic model : We must meet the social needs of the population without discriminating on the basis of race. We must also address the climate crisis. Ensure that policies are inclusive of minorities who are victims of racism.

To conclude, I would say that we need a political left (in the party sense) that is active across all these areas of change, because trade unions and civil society organisations cannot tackle the rise of fascism on their own ! All over the world, it is they who are stepping up !

See : https://blogs.mediapart.fr/christian-delarue/blog/270326/idees-d-extreme-droite-et-democratie

En français sous pdf :
IDÉES D’EXTRÊME-DROITE ET DÉMOCRATIE
Idées d’extrême-droite (déjà là), « crise de la démocratie », et moment d’une nouvelle étape de la démocratisation.