At the start of their reigns, the resemblance was so striking that they were referred to as brothers. Justin Trudeau and Emmanuel Macron appeared to have a lot in common: youth, charisma, a centrist program and faith in progress. And now both contemplate the possibility of their downfall at the same time.
While their rise and fall followed similar trajectories, their terms in office are marked by profound differences.
Comparing them helps, by contrast, to understand their reign.
One word often comes up to describe Mr. Macron: verticality. For him, power is exercised from the top. His nickname, Jupiter, shows the distance that separates him from other mortals.
But what else? As a tourist observer of French news, I asked Frédéric Mérand, director of the political science department at the University of Montreal, for some insight.
The dissolution of the Assembly by the President shows his conception of politics. “He has a hard time not having control,” summarizes Mr. Mérand, a specialist in Europe.
This power is going to his head, which was already big. He wants to win more than to please. He has called citizens “illiterate” and lectured an unemployed person in front of the cameras – “I’ll cross the street, I’ll find you some [un emploi] “.
This temperament suits the Fifth Republic, sometimes described as a “republican monarchy” because of its concentration of powers in the presidency, recalls Mr. Mérand.
In Canada, power has been increasingly concentrated in the Prime Minister’s office for several decades, but we remain far from France.
Mr. Trudeau is hampered by the sharing of powers with the provinces. Despite its centralizing tendencies, for example in health, it comes up against this limit in the environment, where the oil provinces hinder its reforms.
As head of his second minority government, he has learned to negotiate with opposition parties to survive. On television, Mr. Trudeau can appear brusque. But in person, he is distinguished by his attentiveness and affability.
One image, however, has stuck with him: a man better at defending principles than at achieving results.
His government takes an interminable amount of time before deciding on rather simple matters such as the appointment of judges.
In France, Mr Macron’s five-year terms have been marked by controversial decisions, such as the tax on energy products and the increase in the retirement age. But while he has received many criticisms, there is one that has never been levelled at him: consulting too much.
MM. Macron and Trudeau together defended multilateralism, facing Donald Trump. But on the international scene, the first led, while the other followed.
Of course, France is a nuclear power and a permanent member of the UN Security Council. Canada does not have that influence. But even with that limit in mind, Mr Trudeau has played it safe.
The French president made a series of shocking statements. He warned against NATO’s “brain death” and mentioned sending troops to Ukraine, a bluff that was not taken seriously.
Mr. Trudeau is rather criticized for his lack of initiative. Because of its low military investments, Canada is seen as a state that benefits from the efforts of others – which was also true under Stephen Harper.
On the international scene, politicians are reacting. During the electoral campaign at home, they can better develop their vision in their program.
Mr. Trudeau and Mr. Macron have been called centrists. To gain power, they relied on an optimistic message, targeting young people and casting a wide net – membership in their party was made free.
Mr. Trudeau, however, defined himself against an adversary to his right, Mr. Harper. Emmanuel Macron, for his part, succeeded a socialist president. “He started by courting the disappointed members of the Socialist Party. After weakening this adversary to his left, he turned to the Republican electorate,” recalls Mr. Mérand.
The centrist flirted with the left, then with the right. It was for electoral strategy. And then also out of parliamentary necessity, continues Mr. Mérand. “He needed the votes of the Republicans and the National Rally to get his bills adopted.”
Seen from afar, it was sometimes difficult to follow. The president who at the beginning of his term saw asylum seekers as an “economic opportunity” is now critical of the “immigrationist parties”.
Justin Trudeau, for his part, has always leaned towards the same side.
Its multiculturalism places it in direct opposition to the French model. When French teacher Samuel Paty was beheaded by an Islamist, the liberal leader denounced the attack, only to add that freedom of expression had its limits. As if criticism of a religious dogma was in itself intolerant, and as if the violence that ensued was understandable. At the Élysée, this declaration did not pass.
The fact remains that this incident seems distant and that in Ottawa, we would be happy with a victory for Emmanuel Macron’s troops.
In 2022, the president positioned himself as a “bulwark against the extreme right”, recalls Mr. Mérand. “Now he says he is fighting the two extremes, to his left and to his right, by making an equivalence between the two,” adds the political scientist.
For Mr. Trudeau, who is elected through a single-round voting system, the stakes are simpler. He is focusing on a single opponent, the one to his right, with a party that has governed before and is not labeled extremist.
Since his second minority mandate in 2021, he has been banking on the New Democrats to stay in power. This has worsened his spending habits. And it has given ammunition to the Conservatives who accuse him of having accumulated deficits during a period of economic growth and of having reduced the government’s room to maneuver to face the next crisis. With inflation rising, this reputation makes him vulnerable.
Mr. Macron, a former investment banker, is not being judged for his economic skills. The attacks are more about his choices. “He does not advocate budgetary discipline at all costs, he accepts deficits, but he is considered close to business circles,” summarizes Mr. Mérand.
And the president likes risk, as his electoral bet proves.
Despite the differences between the parliamentary system, the voting method, the configuration of parties and the culture of their countries, MM. Macron and Trudeau are fighting against a common enemy: time and its wear and tear.
He is invisible and formidable. And in the end, he never lost a fight.