The legislative elections of June 30 and July 7 raise fears of a period of great turbulence in France and a possible regime crisis. This situation was created by the decision of President Emmanuel Macron to dissolve the National Assembly when he was not obliged to do so, against the advice of the majority of political figures, including the Prime Minister and the Presidents of the Senate and the National Assembly. Mr. Macron was aware that the elections would take place at a time when the National Rally (RN) is on the rise following its victory in the European elections of June 9.
It is difficult to see France’s greater interest in this decision. It seems that Mr. Macron was rather motivated by his wounded self-esteem and by his irrepressible need to establish himself as master of the game. He cherished the hope that the electorate would fall into his camp by fear of “extremes”. In the event of the — probable — failure of this strategy, he calculated that cohabitation (coexistence of a president and a government not belonging to his political family) could enhance it.
Did not President François Mitterrand enjoy a spectacular surge in popularity during the first cohabitation (1986 to 1988), continuing to enjoy the panache of his office while adopting the posture of opponent of the unpopular measures of Jacques Chirac’s government?
The election of Mr. Macron in 2017 raised high hopes. We saw in him a man who could modernize France. His vertical and contemptuous practice of power has ruined these hopes. His economic reforms can be defended, but the arrogance with which he imposed them only succeeded in discrediting the liberalism he wished to embody and fueling a severe populist reaction from the left and especially from the right. On issues related to immigration and education, he gradually sided with the supporters of authority and conservatism, adopting positions quite close to those of the National Rally, stigmatizing “wokism”, “Islamo-leftism” and the “separatism” of Muslim communities.
Inappropriate
Thinking himself brilliant on all subjects, Mr. Macron talks a lot, often inappropriately. While there are concerns about the obscene level of employer compensation and tax evasion, he has called the rich “top of the rope,” justifying the tax gifts he offers them. Conversely, he has treated the unemployed with contempt, advising one of them to “cross the street” to find a job.
His admiring statements towards Gérard Depardieu at a time when the actor was accused of predatory behavior, without a word for the alleged victims, accentuated the perception of a bias for the rich and powerful. Thus, with one hand, he nourished far-right populism through his elitism and, with the other, he reinforced it by legitimizing authoritarianism and the stigmatization of “wokism”.
On the international scene, his flattery towards dictators and strong men, from Putin to Ben Salman via Trump, when these men were kept at a distance by other European leaders, annoyed his partners, as did his comments on the “brain death” of NATO, on Taiwan, on the need not to “humiliate” Russia, on the isolation of Germany or on the far-fetched project of an international force to fight Hamas.
As a result, France’s leadership within the European Union (EU) has crumbled and the relationship with its main partners, particularly Germany, is at an all-time low. In Africa, Mr Macron’s condescending and arrogant remarks towards his African counterparts have contributed to a real collapse of French influence on the continent. Mr. Macron never understood that while he could behave like a monarch in France, this posture is unbearable when he addresses foreign statesmen, particularly the leaders of former French colonies.
The dissolution of the National Assembly is Mr. Macron’s last card to raise his stature and leave power with his head held high in 2027. For the moment, his tactic is not producing the expected results. Polls show the political families he describes as “extreme” (left and far right) well ahead for the next elections.
Mr. Macron, at the request of leaders in his camp who find his chatter harmful, has promised not to campaign. However, he continues to flood the political landscape with his more or less informed remarks. The latest speaks of a risk of “civil war” in the event of victory by “the extremes”. Not sure that these words will appease political life…