11RXNdQ

The Frogs Who Demand a King* 63
defended against coups d’état because it was founded on real and freely accepted
institutions. But the coup d’état occurred within the system through the good offices of
Messrs Pflimlin, Mollet, Pinay and Coty. Perfect: we will not go backwards. What we
need now are other men, other groupings, another government, a programme. Above all,
remember that the Fourth Republic has died of its powerlessness.
And that this powerlessness came upon it because a visiting general had pounced on
the executive and had gained the upper hand in Algiers. The system was appearance. For
three years already, the colonels and the colonists had been the reality. At least neither
Mollet nor Gaillard had been brought to power by force and under the threat of a military
putsch. The New Look system was born of an Algiers uprising and blackmail of the
paras. Moch has recently revealed that a good proportion of France’s mainland Army had
openly supported de Gaulle. He was therefore imposed on us by the Army.
I am not repeating this to recriminate: one judges things by the way they go. But that is
just the point: they have gone very badly: since June, General de Gaulle has made
concession after concession. At the present time, the French government is entirely in the
hands of the Army; scarcely a few days ago, the Prime Minister pronounced the
significant phrase: ‘We must not hide from the fact that the Algerian war will last a long
time.’
Is that better than invoking the ‘closing moments’? Perhaps, but it also tells us that de
Gaulle has chosen all-out war. He will certainly not have chosen it with a light heart, but
because he could not do otherwise. Perhaps people will say that this is another reason to
vote ‘yes’: ‘He will have the support of the French masses.’ But it is precisely that this
mute or almost mute support, those mouths that open to let out a single word as
ambiguous as the words of General de Gaulle himself, all this is useless. Ambiguity turns
against the person who gave it birth.
Some people say ‘yes’ because they want to say ‘no’ (No to the colonels)? Other
people say that other ‘yes’ for that other ‘no’ (No to de Gaulle and the system, see you
soon Soustelle). Who says ‘yes’ and means ‘yes’? And what does that mean? Without a
programme, this pile of voting papers is useless; it hides too many hatreds, already smells
of punch-ups. The only ones who can benefit from a ‘yes’ vote, provided it is huge, are
the fascists. They do not ask them-selves about the meaning of the vote but simply think
that victory will give them a bit more time, either to get de Gaulle involved up to his neck
in the war, or set up organizations and mechanisms which will allow them to overthrow
him one day.
Gaullist republicans, you vote against the system – you elect the resurrected
system.You vote for de Gaulle against Massu – you give the colonels time to organize a
putsch against your elected representative.
Do not forget; the ambiguity all stems from that: de Gaulle is not a fascist, he is a
constitutional monarch; but today, nobody can vote for de Gaulle any more: your ‘yes’
vote can go to fascism alone.
Let us finally understand that one cannot extract a country from its impotence by
entrusting all power to a single man. The only way to avoid those honeyed monarchies
that have no grip on reality, and at the same time the helping hand of the Algiers
commandos, is for us to extract ourselves from our own impotence, is for us to create a
programme, an alliance of parties, defensive and offensive tactics against all those who