Why a French MP played rock, paper, scissors in parliament – and what it teaches us about resisting the far right

Unwilling to shake the hand of a far-right parliamentarian, François Piquemal sought an alternative that wouldn’t leave him open to criticisms of cancel culture.

We are often told that we must listen to reactionaries – take their grievances seriously and address them as part of a democratic system. We are now even told that giving them a shot at power may be the only way to defeat them.

We’re not often told to try to play rock, paper, scissors with them. But that’s exactly what French assembly member for La France Insoumise François Piquemal did when confronted by the prospect of having to shake hands with a member of the Rassemblement National (RN).

Piquemal was one of several left-wing MPs who refused to shake the hand of the RN MP in charge of the vote for the assemblée. Instead, when Flavien Termet extended his hand, Piquemal played scissors as though Termet had played paper. He then shrugged his shoulders and smiled, indicating to Termet that he’d won the game.

His approach may have been comedic but it was, paradoxically, a sign that he, unlike so many other members of the French establishment, really does take the threat posed by the far-right party seriously.

Because it was fun, Piquemal’s action went viral, and the far right was left unable to push back without looking like killjoys. This is a reversal of a tactic so often deployed by the likes of RN.

The action was also a breath of fresh air. The type of defeatist stance that tells us we have to engage with the far right has been widespread in the aftermath of RN’s hyped victory in the EU elections in June. Indeed, it has driven much of President Emmanuel Macron’s strategy against the far right since his 2017 election, which has seen the mainstreaming of the far right accelerate. The situation was already alarming following the presidencies of François Hollande and Nicolas Sarkozy, but Macron has found a way to make things worse.

Macron’s petulant decision to call a snap election in France after the European election rested on the idea that offering the RN another campaign to legitimise itself was a gamble worth taking. While the RN’s Jordan Bardella failed to win a majority, his record performance in the first round of the election emboldened RN’s supporters at a time when France has seen a sharp rise in hate crimes.

Some also thought that should the RN win, its time in power would prove its downfall. This position is both naïve and dangerous, as it ignores the damage the far right can do simply by getting into power. Too often, mainstream actors, whether in politics or the media, ignore that the rise and mainstreaming of the far right has very real consequences for those at the sharp end of its politics.

The growing acceptance of the far right as normal is not just an issue in France, of course. See, for example, British foreign secretary David Lammy’s comments about his ability to “find common ground” with Republican vice-presidential candidate J.D. Vance, or the way Nigel Farage has been allowed to set the agenda. Witness how Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni has become accepted as just another leader within the EU, as if her policies at home were not a direct threat to many communities.

Far-right politics are innately incompatible with democracy, so finding “common ground” with them is complicity. We cannot treat politics that directly threaten some minoritised and vulnerable communities as part of a legitimate discussion. We cannot treat them as making valid arguments in democratic deliberation if their aim is to upend democracy and justice for all. We cannot engage with them as interlocutors without legitimising the idea that the lives and rights of some are a matter for debate.

Acts of resistance like Piquemal’s are essential to make clear that RN is not a party like any other. Indeed, the necessity to even consider carefully how to resist the far right to avoid backlash tells us a lot about the current setting, where resistance, pure and simple, is no longer a given.

It must be made clear again that resistance against the far right is not cancel culture: it is the opposite, since its aim is upholding democratic ideals for the protection of all. In this insistence, Piquemal’s approach prevented complaints from the far right of being “cancelled”, as denouncing him would have made them seem like sore losers.

Yet this is only a starting point. Words and symbolic gestures are not enough – tangible change must happen if resistance is to succeed. There must be a positive plan of action to address the many crises facing the world, or we risk losing ever more people to abstention, thus bolstering the results for the far right.

Still, in these times of heightened mainstreaming of far-right politics, actions like those of Piquemal and his colleagues are a powerful reminder that resistance is far from futile.

Aurelien Mondon does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.