ABSTRACT
The subject is an elusive one. The extreme Right, the extra-parliamentary Right, the right-wing opposition — or the extreme extra-parliamentary right-wing opposition? Either reading could be justified in the light of contemporary evidence. It can be argued that three overlapping, but analytically distinct, categories exist and that the relationships obtaining between them require investigation, if only to ascertain whether they are necessary or contingent. When the whole of the Right is in opposition, neither political extremism nor the lack/rejection of parliamentary representation need reflect discrepant value systems rather than diverging tactics. If opposition is a continuum, differences in its midst may be of degree rather than kind. Yet, throughout the history of the Fifth Republic until the 1981 presidential election, the extreme Right has been consistently anti-Gaullist. Relegated to the political wilderness in the aftermath of the Vichy regime, it gained new momentum with the loss of Algeria. At both stages, sentences passed upon leaders deprived them of civic rights, thus driving this opposition into extra-parliamentary channels. A focus on the second reading would therefore highlight the continuity of a distinct tradition and would construe the French Right as split by lasting divisions into different species. Either way, it would be a case of discussing les droites rather than la droite. However, the approach which stresses analytical distinctions may lead to a recognition of solidarity on the right of the political spectrum while the obverse one, concerned with historical persistence, casts doubts upon its durability or even its credibility. The former, without denying the existence of multiple trends, posits that they may coalesce when confronting a common challenge, i.e. when in opposition. The latter emphasises the differentia specifica rather than the single genus; extremism is presented as intrinsically and lastingly divisive. As it singles out groups which are either unintentionally or deliberately outside the scope of parliamentary politics, it raises the issue of connections between extra- and anti-parliamentarianism. Hence it calls for greater specificity in defining parameters.
