of the state (a reference to the MRP’s Catholic loyalties) and the powers of the second chamber (a reference to the MRP’s intention to revive the Senate in some form).[378]

This relative self-restraint allowed the PCF to join the Bidault government, which was approved by an overwhelming majority in the Constituent Assembly on 26 June: Thorez and Gouin both became vice-premiers. But the government’s composition, with nine MRP ministers, seven Communists, six Socialists, one member of the UDSR and one with no party allegiance, reflected a weakening in the positions of the PCF and the SFIO, which now controlled only slightly over half the portfolios between them. Meanwhile de Gaulle had joined in the constitutional debate: his Bayeux speech of 16 June called for strong leadership at the top in what resembled a presidentialised republic. France’s anti-communist forces were now divided between Gaullists, main– stream conservatives, and the right wing of the MRP. Yet de Gaulle was always the PCF’s most formidable opponent; his return to the political scene inevitably gave the leadership pause for thought.

For the PCF, the two years since the liberation of Paris presented a mixed picture. Its membership and electorate had grown to levels unimaginable before 1939; ministerial office had won it respectability, plus the chance to place Communists in key administrative posts. But its wooing of the Socialists had been rebuffed; its claims to lead the government, however democratically legitimate, had been vetoed by the Socialists and the MRP; its preferred constitutional project – whose lack of checks and balances offered the best opportunity for any party that dominated the National Assembly to install itself durably in power – had been rejected by the voters; and the MRP had overtaken it (briefly, as it would turn out) at the ballot-box. Above all, perhaps, the ‘left-wing bloc’ was no nearer being achieved than in 1944. It was against this background of setbacks that the PCF received further advice from Moscow.

Stepping back: the Frachon-Suslov meeting and the October 1946 referendum

Within the ongoing contacts between the PCF and Moscow, the meeting of 19 June 1946 between Mikhail Suslov, a member of the CPSU’s Central Committee, and Benoît Frachon, joint secretary of the CGT and an unofficial member of the PCF’s Bureau politique, is especially important. Suslov sent a record of the conversation, marked ‘Top Secret’, to Molotov, stressing that Frachon had asked, in the name of the PCF leadership, for advice from the CPSU, though without raising any specific questions.[379]

Suslov’s record is chiefly remarkable for Frachon’s self-criticism over the PCF’s implementation of Stalin’s directives. The referendum campaign, he said, had seen a bitter struggle between the forces of ‘democracy’ and those of ‘reaction’, which had gone onto the offensive. But the PCF had run ahead of events, notably by demanding the premiership for Thorez. Intended to rally the largest possible number of Communist sympathisers, and ultimately to give ‘the masses’ a practical demonstration of Communist-led government, the slogan ‘Thorez au pouvoir’ ‘failed to take account of the fact that there are millions of Frenchmen who vote for the Communists but who don’t yet want them leading the government’. The PCF had also underestimated the forces of reaction, who, with the ‘profascist’ PRL at their head, had used ‘Thorez au pouvoir’ to play on hesitant voters’ fears. Although the Party had ‘taken a step back’ after the referendum, it had still faced an unprecedented anti-communist campaign at the June elections, led not only by the Right but by the Socialists, MRP and Radicals as well, which had left the PCF isolated. Even though Frachon talked of the PCF’s ‘victorious’ electoral campaign, his closing statement still leaves the impression that the Party was seeking to recognise its errors and its failure to heed Stalin’s warnings of November 1944. ‘Avoiding the isolation of the Party, holding on to positions gained, and surviving the difficulties of the current period’ were the bases of the PCF’s line. ‘Avoiding isolation’ meant seeking to extend the Party’s influence with the peasants, working with the petty bourgeoisie, continuing to work for the ‘unity of the working class’ (presumably a reference to competitive co-operation with the Socialists) and establishing relations with ‘democratic elements’ in the Radical Party and the MRP.

The PCF’s behaviour at the referendum of 12 October 1946 on the second (and definitive) draft Constitution corresponded to the strategy outlined by Frachon. The MRP, despite its former self-definition as the party of ‘fidelity’ to de Gaulle, sealed a lasting split with the General by refusing to back the strong presidential regime he had advocated at Bayeux. It was then obliged to reach an agreement with the Communists and Socialists. The second draft included the upper chamber the MRP had always wanted. But its powers (and the president’s) would be limited, and the state’s secular character would be guaranteed.[380]This compromise was backed by all three of the tripartite parties, and the PCF threw itself into the Yes campaign. On 7 October the Central Committee issued a text, reproduced in Pravda, calling on ‘all French patriots’ to ensure ‘the triumph of the Constitution of the French Republic’, against the ‘murky forces of reaction’ backed by ‘the trusts’ who opposed the restoration of republican principles in the Constitution now, as they had betrayed French democracy in the past. Pravda also, significantly, underlined the common ground between the PCF and the SFIO, reporting a speech by Vincent Auriol, the Socialist president of the Assembly, underlining the need to end the pro– visional regime and the dangers of a No vote.[381]

A similar theme – the PCF’s alignment with France’s ‘democratic forces’ against the ‘reactionaries’ who opposed the constitutional draft – is found in the treatment of de Gaulle during the campaign. Thus Pravda reported Thorez’s carefully-worded attack on the General, who, ‘whatever the respect owed him for past services to the country’, had now lined up with a ‘reactionary coalition’ including former supporters of the