From Letras Libres, translated from the Spanish by Eurozine, September 1:
France risks becoming ungovernable. Many blame the situation on Macron’s autocratic style. But the problem lies deeper, in the development of the parties and party elites.
In June 2024, after European elections that were a clear rejection of his party Renaissance, French president Emmanuel Macron dissolved the National Assembly in an act that only cemented his defeat. The centrist coalition Ensemble, in which Renaissance is the biggest party, had previously formed the largest faction with 250 seats; now it had only 166. The leftwing coalition New Popular Front (NFP, formerly NUPES), went from 151 to 193. The rightwing National Rally (RN) and allies made even bigger gains, going from 89 to 142. The RN alone won 126 seats, placing it as the leading parliamentary party in France.
Dissatisfied with the results, Macron waited two full months before appointing a prime minister from the centre right, Michel Barnier, who had skilfully negotiated Brexit on the side of the EU. His government lasted three months. Then, in December, Macron appointed the centrist François Bayrou, who reportedly prevailed by threatening to withdraw the support of his parliamentary group for Macron’s party.
The political environment in France has therefore been grim for over a year. Even though the president’s control over internal political events grows smaller by the day, he could again dissolve the National Assembly, a decision that could lead to the National Rally obtaining a majority and demanding that one of their own be named prime minister.
Conflicting orders from the government and the presidency have brought the state machinery to a standstill. The response to the unrest in New Caledonia, when the president ignored the minister responsible (Manuel Valls), was paradigmatic of this situation. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs moves to a rhythm set by press releases from the Élysée Palace. Some ministers go even further, making outrageous statements far outside their ministerial powers and in contradiction to the actions of the ministers responsible.
Since January the National Assembly has approved only one law – on the right to die with dignity (and even that is incomplete). There have been missed opportunities and absurd decisions, particularly on matters of ecology. Rather than acting, the political class fluctuates between pessimism and prudence, preferring to wait for the municipal elections in 2026 and the presidential elections in 2027. According to a poll, constituents see their MPs as ‘far removed’ and believe that ‘there is nothing to hope’ from them anymore. The mood of the French people ‘swings between doubt, indifference and rage’, the predominant feeling being ‘that the country is ungovernable’.
The failure of the parties
Some would say that this situation is solely due to Macron. This interpretation is not entirely false. The president’s arrogance – and especially his ‘you understand nothing’ response to critics – has little of the ‘cold gaze’ that Max Weber once considered essential in a politician. Macron has become increasingly isolated, deserted by many of his close friends and followers. Some have left for careers in the private sector, disregarding any sense of public loyalty, not to mention conflicts of interest; others have been conveniently reshuffled. Some, like his former prime ministers Édouard Philippe and Gabriel Attal, have been unceremoniously cut loose. Revelations from intellectuals disappointed by Macron have become an established genre.Yet despite Macron’s failings, we have to ask more generally about the responsibilities of the political class, particularly parliamentarians and the parties they represent. The survey previously mentioned locates the moment at which the disconnect between the French people and the political class occurred in the long period of indecisiveness that followed the announcement of the election results.
Grouped together in an improvised alliance, the Left finished in the lead without achieving an absolute majority. They then demanded, not without grounds, that a member of their ranks be appointed prime minister to take charge of forming a government. But contrary to all democratic traditions, the president decreed that the Olympic break did not allow for appointment of a prime minister able to form a government capable of obtaining the consent of a majority of parliamentarians.
The position of the NFP was defined by the stridency of France Unbowed (France Insoumise, FI), which demanded that, as the largest party in the coalition, the prime minister should come from its own ranks and the only government program that could be implemented was that of the NFP. In so doing, FI made two mistakes. The first was to forget that the party which emerged strongest after the elections was the National Rally, led by Marine Le Pen; the second mistake, more serious still, was to think that, without a majority, the NFP had the right to form a government without reaching any agreement with other republican forces. Once again, the far left chose to participate in a game of voluntary servitude to Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who sees himself as a head controlling a large body, in the style of the tyrant described by Étienne de la Boétie in 1577.
With few exceptions, no one from any of the other parties in the NFP were able to remind Mélenchon of political realities. Nor was the NFP able to take advantage of the parenthesis provided by the Olympics to start a dialogue with other parties. It could have tried to restart the debate on a number of controversial but essential issues, such as the unpopular pension reform, the financing of the energy transition, or the reforms of the judiciary and education. As the French constitution states, it was not for the parties in the NFP to propose a government. But they could have shown that there were responsible politicians on the left, ones more concerned about the interests of the country than with their results in the opinion polls.
This would also have been a way of countering Macron’s Bonapartism. For elected representatives from Renaissance were equally irresponsible. Unlike politicians in many other European democracies, they were equally incapable of compromise. The culture of servility within the presidential party was just as bad as what prevails in France Unbowed.
As for the centre right, the few sensible voices were imperceptible....
....MUCH MORE
