For the past week the airwaves in France have eulogised Robert Badinter, a name unfamiliar to many outside the Republic. He was the Justice Minister under François Mitterrand and the man who oversaw the abolition of the death penalty in 1981.

On Wednesday Emmanuel Macron presided over what was billed as a national act of remembrance. Badinter, who died aged 95 last week, will be laid to rest in the Panthéon alongside the other heroes of the Republic.

What most of the eulogies omitted was the fact that Badinter – universally respected as a man of conviction and humanity – abolished the death penalty against the wishes of the majority.

A survey in 1980 found that 61 per cent of the population were opposed to the abolition of capital punishment; although this figure dropped to 30 per cent in the 1990s, it has steadily risen this century as French society has become increasingly violent. A survey in 2020 revealed that 55 per cent of people canvassed were in favour of restoring the death penalty.

In truth, Wednesday’s ‘national’ service of remembrance was no such thing; on the orders of Badinter’s family MPs from two of France’s three biggest parties were told to stay away: Marine Le Pen’s National Rally and Jean-Luc Melenchon’s La France Insoumise.

LFI were persona non grata because of their ambivalence towards the rising anti-Semitism in France (Badinter was Jewish) while the National Rally weren’t welcome because of their ambivalence towards the abolition of the death penalty. ‘A national tribute that excludes a part of France is no longer a national tribute,’ tweeted an angry Melenchon. ‘The republic is indivisible.’

Melenchon was right on the first count but wrong on the second; France is anything but indivisible.

Capital punishment is proof. The majority are in favour but their opinion doesn’t count; it didn’t in 1981 and it doesn’t now.

There are other two significant examples; Europe and mass immigration. In 2005 the French were famously asked to ratify the EU Constitution in a referendum. Only they didn’t, voting ‘Non’. The then President of the Republic, Jacques Chirac, promised the result would be respected but it wasn’t, and in 2007 the Constitution – repackaged as the Lisbon Treaty – was passed by parliament without putting it to the people.

Referendums were a regular occurrence in the first four decades of the Fifth Republic (eight in total on a variety of issues) but there hasn’t been one since 2005. If the people can’t be relied on to return the right result then why go to the trouble?

The right has been clamouring for a number of years for a referendum on immigration, but Macron ruled that out last year. No need, he said, pointing to his government’s tough new immigration bill. It turned out not to be very tough, so Le Pen’s party and the Republicans conspired to make it more rigorous. Macron was horrified and referred the bill to the Constitutional Court. The unelected body restored the bill to its original inadequacy.

This flew in the face of public opinion; for years poll has shown that the overwhelming majority of people are anxious about the high rate of immigration. Two polls in the last month returned similar results: 69 per cent want immigration better controlled and 77 per cent judge this government incapable of achieving that control.

But, just as Badinter ignored the majority and abolished capital punishment, so Macron closes his ears to the people and maintains an anarchic immigration policy.

There is a difference between 1981 and 2023 and that is the growth of new media; back in Badinter’s day there was no internet, social media or independent broadcasters. The people got their news from three state-run broadcasters so it was far easier for the elite to exert ideological control over the people.

Peddling opinions! Perish the thought a media outlet should ever do that.

This control has been steadily eroded in the decades since, a process accelerated since the Catholic conservative tycoon Vincent Bolloré began expanding his media empire. Among his portfolio is the broadcaster CNews, the Gallic answer to GB News, which has been the bête noire of the ruling elite for a number of years.

Why? The game was given away this week by a headline in Radio France Internationale, a state-run broadcaster: ‘French TV channel faces scrutiny over allegations of peddling opinion, not news’.

Peddling opinions! Perish the thought a media outlet should ever do that. Of course, it’s not that CNews peddles opinions per se, it’s that they’re not the right opinions. The broadcaster speaks for the majority when its commentators criticise mass immigration, the EU, Islamism and insecurity.

The ‘scrutiny’ to which CNews has been subjected was instigated by a French NGO, Reporters Without Borders, whose mission statement is to ‘act for the freedom, pluralism and independence of journalism and defend those who embody these ideals’.

But ‘independence’ evidently has its limits for RWB, whose director, Christophe Deloire, was recently described by Liberation newspaper as ‘Macron-compatible’.

RWB accused CNews of not being diverse enough in its output, an accusation it has never levelled at the state-run broadcasters, well known for their progressive left bias. The Council of State agreed with RWB this week and ordered CNews to show greater pluralism in its content.

While progressives rejoiced and the right warned of an attack on freedom of expression, the most perceptive analysis came from the distinguished historian Georges Bensoussan. As he explained in a radio interview, he has been ostracised by state-run media for many years because his opinions are problematical for progressives. Bensoussan attributed the censorship of CNews to ‘an expression of panic in high places’. Panic against what? ‘The working classes are beginning to make their voices heard,’ explained Bensoussan, ‘and this is something that the cultural bourgeoisie finds very difficult to tolerate.’

This cultural and political bourgeoisie has dominated France for half a century; it has exerted its will in the face of majority opinion, whether in abolishing the death penalty, ceding more sovereignty to the EU or refusing to control the country’s borders.

Their intolerance of divergent views explains the rise of Marine Le Pen and the popularity of CNews. No wonder they’re panicking on high. Nonetheless the troubling question remains: just how far will the ruling elite go to cling onto power and keep the proles at bay?