Jordan Bardella insists: the anti-Semitic writings attributed to him by Mediapart are “either manipulation or a gross forgery”. Repeated denials, while the investigative media made public some of the messages revealed, justifying the authenticity of these and the digital procedure used by bailiff.
A strategy of refusing these accusations en bloc is “extremely risky”, analyzes Arnaud Mercier, professor of political communication at Paris Panthéon Assas University, whom 20 Minutes interviewed.
What to think of Jordan Bardella's defense strategy regarding Mediapart's accusations?
I think we can speak of Trumpism in the sense that it seems to apply the strategy of Roy Cohn, the one who launched and advised Trump in politics, who theorized to always deny his possible faults and to immediately counterattack.
And Jordan Bardella applies this Trump-style strategy, even if the writings and evidence seem overwhelming, he denies it outright and turns the accusation around by talking about nonsense and conspiracy. And thus attack Mediapart, even though Bardella was able, in other matters revealed by Mediapart, to qualify them as a serious newspaper.
The other aspect is judicial intimidation, although Mediapart has strong backs and has never lost a case against a political figure. All this is communication and window dressing that wants to give credibility to his denial: “Look, I’m going to court, I’m not afraid of anything. » A strategy that he has already used, notably against BHL where he withdrew his defamation complaint less than two weeks before the hearing. A bluff vis-à-vis public opinion and its voters which is also a strategy of saving time by banking on the slowness of justice to maintain uncertainty for as long as possible, arguing that the case is not judged, and leaving its supporters the possibility of defending it.
Is it a good calculation to say, in short, those who vote for me believe me, the others are not people who would have voted RN anyway, so we might as well deny everything?
It's a little too binary. You are right, it is quite classic in these cases to let those who vote RN out of conviction to rely on this denial and take pleasure in believing that they are the victim of a conspiracy.
But that would be to forget two other issues: there are the voters likely to be convinced, I am thinking of the voters of the classic right, rather elderly and practicing Catholics, whom the RN is eating away at. This population can be burned by such hatred of Jews which can pose too strong a moral dilemma for them.
This while the RN has spent years forgetting its original anti-Semitism - of a party founded by a former SS and Jean-Marie Le Pen - and today which presents itself as the "shield of the Jews of France". Now it turns out that Bardella is no less anti-Semitic than old Le Pen.
And all this may be important in the second round, on the question of the Republican barrier. The RN was succeeding in passing on the mistigri of anti-Semitism to LFI, particularly on the Palestinian question, and in the event of a second round against Mélenchon, the polls showed Le Pen rather winning, particularly on these moral grounds. And there, it reshuffles the cards and puts a little tension back on the voters who are neither RN nor LFI, to know which one is less bad for them.
We can hear that he would have done better to play the “youthful stupidity” card, if indeed he is indeed the author of these writings. Is it too late to say it?
Yes, now Jordan Bardella is stuck. He could have played this bad company card and shown how he had evolved. He had this card but it's over. He invents the most vague theories by filing a complaint for forgery and use of forgeries. From there, he can no longer change his strategy without losing credibility. He trapped himself.
We have seen the various leaders of the RN, from Marine Le Pen to Jean-Philippe Tanguy, support it for the time being on the basis “Jordan could not have written that”. What consequences would his departure from the RN of which he is president have?
It’s the whole story of the RN to remove some of its leaders who take too much “autonomy”. This was the case of Florian Philippot, Robert Ménard and Bruno Mégret, who in 1998 left the FN with a good part of the executives after attempting a putsch against Jean-Marie Le Pen. We thought that the FN was going to collapse electorally, but we all know what happened in 2002. An internal crisis does not always weaken this party, so I remain cautious. Perhaps Jordan Bardella can lose a few votes to the RN and the “young asset” that he represents, particularly on TikTok, but that would be marginal.
