Ben Fayot is the chair of the Luxembourg Socialist Workers Party (LSAP) caucus in the Luxembourg Parliament. He served as LSAP president and has been a member of the European Parliament. The LSAP is currently in a coalition government with the conservative Christian Social People’s Party (CSV). By profession, Mr. Fayot is a political historian specializing in the history of socialism in Luxembourg. Mr. Fayot agreed to comment on the French influence on Luxembourg progressive politics, the financial crisis, and European expectations towards the Obama administration. The interview was conducted in Luxembourg City and translated into English by Stephan Peter of Twin Cities DSA earlier this year.
S.P.: Mr. Fayot, in French socialist party politics recently, Martine Aubry, the left-wing candidate, won a contested election for party leader against Segolene Royal, last year’s socialist presidential candidate. The LSAP on its website immediately issued a letter of congratulation complete with Ms. Aubry’s picture. I have not seen this being done by other European socialist parties. Is this a sign of special relations between the PSF and the LSAP?
B.F.: It is a constant in the LSAP’s history to-since the beginning of the 20th century-having been influenced, politically, programmatically, by socialist ideas coming from France, by intellectuals studying in France, and through our media reporting about political trends in neighboring countries. This continues to the present day. There is a second aspect. The emergence of the social democratic/socialist family in Europe. They attempt to achieve a certain power position in Europe. The French PS and the German SP belong to it. There is on-going political dialogue. For us as a social democratic party in a smaller country it is essential to be connected, in Europe, with social democratic and socialist parties in bigger countries where it is possible to collaborate on various political issues. Thus it’s important to us that with Martine Aubry, the French socialists appear to have ended their internal dispute, that it’s a party again to – hopefully-play a determined role in France itself, such as for their next presidential election. As you know, we’re geographically close to France and there is such tradition that we send letters of congratulation and are tuned in on what happens there.
S.P.: There is just one major left party in Luxembourg, the LSAP. In Germany there is the SPD but also the emerging ‘Left Party,’ in the Netherlands a social democratic and a socialist party both equally strong, in France there are some Trotskyite parties besides the PS, in Great Britain only the Labor Party but with a membership almost halfed under Tony Blair. What’s your magic formula - the LSAP successfully uniting all significant factions on the Left?
B.F.: In Luxembourg we also have a Communist Party and another party that split from the Communists, called ‘The Left.’ These two parties participate in various elections but are hostile towards each other. If they went together they might get somewhere. The Communist Party has existed since 1921 and was very powerful until the end of the 1960’s and into the 1970’s. It disappeared in the 1980’s from the parliamentary stage. IT was a very Stalinist party, oriented towards Moscow. The ‘Left Party’ split from it because they disagreed with this orientation. Today, a potential challenge tends to come from the ‘Left Party’ not the Communist Party. If the economic and financial crisis deepens it is conceivable that the ‘Left Party’ might gain votes. In the industrialized Southern part of the country, especially, exists a left critical potential. One could see that at the referendum about the European constitution. 43% voted ‘no’, primarily in the Southern region. This has to do with a certain skeptical view towards ‘Eurocrats’; furthermore with the influence of the French Socialist Party. Their internal discussions on this issue certainly had an affect in Luxembourg. So, there is a potential, largely invisible since 1989/90, that could be reactivated depending on circumstances. One reason it did not emerge as of yet was the lack, by-and-large, of neo-liberal politics in Luxembourg - unlike in part in Great Britain or France. We always made politics with a strong social component. One has to consider we were not alone in government but with the Christian-Social Party. Yet, this party’s social wing and our party’s social currents collaborated well. Finally, in the country of Luxembourg 40% are non-Luxembourg citizens- people working in various European institutions, in industry – who perhaps might be affected by an economic crisis; while the jobs of many Luxembourg citizens are reasonably well protected. Due to these circumstances, a left-socialist party like in Germany, ‘The Left’ of Oskar Lafontaine, has not real voting potential, at least that potential cannot be a ‘social’ one. There might be an ideological discontent stemming from a critique of the LSAP as coalition partner to the Christian Democrats, but this discontent is not a decisive factor, even in times of crisis.
S.P.: The LSAP website emphasizes a Keynesianist program in response to the current economic crisis. But the question today, in the U.S. as well, is not ‘Keynes’ or ‘no Keynes.’ That was a 1930’s debate. The question now is ‘how much Keynes’ – there undoubtedly will be more Keynesianism under Obama then would have been under McCain – and also the issue of democratic control of doled-out taxpayers’ money. What are some of the concepts discussed by the LSAP in this context?
B.F.: Until now, we have attempted to control the crisis by the mechanisms we developed in the 1970’s. Back then we had a severe crisis in the steel industry and we implemented a series of protective policies against unemployment, e.g., government sponsored share-the-work plans, early retirement, re-training, and other public-private initiatives attempting to keep employees in companies. So, there is a repertoire of measures we use today, coming from the crisis times of the 1970’s. These concerted efforts, together with the labor unions, that’s one thing we do. In May of last year we began with the budget for the following year. This included government proposing to adjust income tax progression to inflation; 6 percent for 2008, 9 percent for 2009. It encompassed additional instruments for lower wage income earners, considering the income tax begins at a relatively high level. A 600 million Euro package was announced, not little for an overall budget of 9 billion Euro. Then the crisis set in. But now, the Keynesian package was in the pipeline, since it had been decided upon last May. What we had to do is implement it – as part of our normal budget process. Add to that investments – we always had a high investment quota, for 2009 it’s especially high – that also needed to be brought on its way. In sum, Keynesian policies already existed, it now was a matter of putting them into practice. We have, as part of the budget, a number of dedicated funds, transportation, environment, education, etc. And then these redistribution measures for families with children, singles with kids, increase of minimum wage, increase of pensions and social security. A comprehensive packet with a strong focus on social redistribution and public investments for the country was there – it just had to be promoted as a Keynesian packet.
S.P.: What does the LSAP expect from the new president Obama with regard to the European-U.S. relationship?
B.F.: Here in Luxembourg we all, including the socialists, are traditionally very friendly towards the U.S. but when Bush started the war on Iraq we were, for the first time since the end of WWII really, against a U.S. action. It was quite a test for our relationship, not just for Luxembourg but for Germany and other countries as well. We hope such a situation will not repeat itself under the Obama administration. We hope for multilateralism in our relations. And that we, I speak here not just as a Luxembourg citizen but a European, have a relationship of mutual trust, not just from a geopolitical viewpoint but in order to jointly move forward on development policy, social policy, to promote democracy with an understanding for particular circumstances of individual countries and systems. Then naturally, one can wish for the war on terror, regarded so highly by Bush, to be advanced through balancing security with attempting dialogue with countries such as Iran, countries highly critical of the U.S. To accomplish a new quality in the prosecution of terrorism. As chair of the foreign relations committee in the Luxembourg parliament I meet many different people from other countries. There have been Iranian parliamentarians in our parliament – one must listen to them. Of course, concerning the Americans, they have their arguments, and while I do not accept them wanting to acquire nuclear weapons, their response often is who determines who can own nuclear weapons. Those are the problems talking with these people, and one has to approach them honestly. I hope President Obama manages to engage in such dialogue; that dialogue becomes part of the war on terror.
S.P.: Merci beaucoup, herzlichen Dank, Herr Fayot.
Stephan Peter is national co-chair of DSA International Commission and a member of Twin Cities DSA and the German SPD.
Comments