“The PS is no longer in phase with a part of society, it must become a mass party again”

What did you think when you found out the election results?

Throughout the campaign, I felt like something weird was happening, although I couldn’t identify what it was. I was not surprised by the electoral movements, but by their amplitude. I don’t think anyone expected that.

Here are the final results for Belgium in the 2024 European, federal and regional elections

How do you analyse this defeat of the left, of the PS in particular?

The PS has lost a third of its voters in twenty years, and this electorate has not only gone to the PTB. Left-wing votes have moved to the right. I explain this by two major elements. One: an ideological positioning based in part on lies, and it worked. Two: a form of rejection of an ideology described as belonging to the last century, embodied by the PS, the unions, the mutual societies, etc.

What lie are you talking about?

What concerns me are these so-called “low-wage” people, who earn around 1,800 euros per month, who traditionally voted to the left, PS or PTB, and who have switched to the right. Didier Eribon’s book, “Return to Reims”, explains this. He is homosexual. When he left Reims to go to Paris, his parents were workers and voted communist. When he returns years later, his mother votes far right. This change cannot be explained only by a feeling of downgrading. This is what I call the “poor man’s war.” Those who earn between 1500 and 2000 euros, rather than asking for a salary increase – for example, modifying the law of 96 (on the fixing of salaries in Belgium, Editor’s note) –, they look towards social welfare recipients who receive unemployment. However, when we say that those who work do not earn more than those who are unemployed, we have seen that a study from the universities of Ghent and Antwerp has proven exactly the opposite! When we say that we need at least 500 euros difference, well it’s already there! This is where there was a skillfully used lie. Rather than hitting social welfare recipients, let’s hit salaries. But I recognize that this battle of ideas was won by the right. There is a form of cultural hegemony on this level which is probably lasting.

To what extent do you make the connection between the rise of the National Rally (extreme right) in France and that of the MR in Belgium, which you are targeting here?

Don’t make me say what I didn’t say: the MR is not a far-right party. Certainly not. But it has techniques that are close to it, populist postures. Georges-Louis Bouchez (president of the MR) tells people: “I alone understand you and I will explain to you how to do it, against the elites”. How many times “the small media world”as he says, was attacked? There is also this video of Pierre-Yves Jeholet which circulated on social networks (Editor’s note: the MR elected official had said to a PTB candidate about wearing the veil: “If you don’t like it, you don’t have to stay in Belgium”). The MR tapped into people’s most impulsive common senses. He also advocates individualism: everything is the responsibility of the individual. He finds scapegoats: the sick; the unemployed ; foreigners, it’s borderline, but we’re not that far away… These are techniques that have nothing to envy of the extremes. It is dangerous for democracy.

Georges-Louis Bouchez (MR) to La Libre: “We will manage the country like engineers, not like poets”

You say that workers should demand wage increases. The parties generally propose to play on taxation. You, are you talking about the gross salary, therefore also the share paid by companies?

Of course! Because when you increase gross salaries, you also finance public services and Social Security. By 2029, the Social Security deficit will reach 11 billion euros. However, this deficit is structurally due to reductions in social security contributions and the tax shift uncompensated (the tax reform of the Michel government, Editor’s note). This “war of the poor” is very dangerous for social cohesion. What the MR did was divide society. This right-wing of society should not be underestimated. And the PS has been incapable of still being a desirable party for this segment of the electorate which generally swings the election.

Didn’t the voters simply want to punish the PS’s failure to straighten out Wallonia?

I wouldn’t call it a failure. Nor can we call it a great success. But there is certainly wear and tear.

This is the second element of explanation of the election results that you pointed out: a form of rejection of the PS.

The political offer has been renewed. The MR is very different from what it was in the past. The Engaged (born from the former CDH, Editor’s note) have carried out an exercise in introspection that each party should do in its own way at some point. There is the PTB which arrived in the game a few years ago. And we have the feeling that the PS has stuck to its line. I have said this several times to Paul Magnette (president of the PS): when a left-wing party no longer thinks about society, no longer absorbs the underground rivers that shape society, it is doomed to have a problem. There is a political thought that must be conceptualized in line with what is happening on the ground.

Has the PS been made obsolete by the other parties?

Yes I think so. You have to look in the mirror. I hope that we will have the strength to do it, as Les Engagés dared to modernize. I said it to the party office: we need to rethink the society in which we live. The elections have shown that we are no longer in phase with at least part of society. We must rethink our doctrine and our ideology. We will have to take into account this notion of individualism, build a form of “altruistic individualist” identity… The PS will have to rediscover the local anchoring which has given it its strength to listen to people tell their stories about their difficulties and not come with ready-made solutions; it will have to expand and train its activist bases to counter simplistic discourse; change its narratives to talk to people about what really interests them. We have sometimes made mistakes in battles which certainly sometimes deserve to be fought, but which are not the main concern of people.

The fight for the establishment of a millionaires tax, for example?

Yes. I’m not saying you shouldn’t do it, but it doesn’t speak to people. Finally, last element: the left will have to unite.

Do you call a French-style union of left-wing parties, as Thierry Bodson didpresident of the FGTB, last week?

Not just political parties. Also all progressive civil society. I have never been involved in a coalition, but we will certainly have to come together. This is one of the points that the left will have to work on. When the left-wing parties spend their time beating each other up, the right makes its way…

Is Paul Magnette still the right person to lead these projects at the PS?

It was extended by the party office. That’s it. Everyone is waiting for the local elections in October too. In any case, it was extended.

You are not answering the question.

I don’t like to talk about anyone in particular. What we need is a collective movement that includes activists. The Socialist Party must once again become a mass party if it wants to influence politics. This is what had made the strength of the PS since Cools, Spitaels, Busquin or Di Rupo (the predecessors of Mr. Magnette, Editor’s note)On the left, it is a collective that is needed, even if there is always a first among equals. It’s Paul today. But it’s the in-depth work that interests me. The PS must carry out a lot of introspection.

Do you fear the establishment of an Arizona coalition (N-VA, MR, Les Engagés, CD&V, Vooruit) at the federal level? We know that the MR and the N-VA want to limit health spending.

On health care, we remain optimistic because we think that Les Engagés, Vooruit and the CD&V will make it an important issue. On the other hand, we are more worried about the unemployed and the long-term sick, as well as the role of intermediary bodies. We still have two hard right parties, MR and N-VA, which are against intermediary bodies, against social consultation, against unions, mutual societies (Mr. Bouchez had announced his desire to reduce the role of mutual societies, Editor’s note)… All this worries me in terms of democracy. Vooruit, Les Engagés and CD&V are not on this line. We therefore have relays in this coalition, but we are attentive and we will judge on the basis of the government agreement.

The preformer De Wever will try to seat the presidents of the “Arizonian” parties at the same table