“We are entering the political season with something quite unprecedented: this intervention which is not intended for the French but which is intended to coach” the government, explains Jean-Christophe Gallien, political scientist and communicator, Thursday August 25 on franceinfo, after the words of Emmanuel Macron in the preamble to the Council of Ministers, Wednesday. The president declared “the end of abundance” and “the end of recklessness”, “something that the French have been living for a very long time”comments the political scientist who sees both “a provoking shift” from the Head of State in order to “pre-justify difficult measures”but also a way to take advantage of the opposition. “This cynicism can be dangerous for him”concludes Jean-Christophe Gallien.
franceinfo: Is it a communication error?
Jean-Christophe Gallien: The gap between what is said and the reality experienced by the French can indeed appear abysmal, even provocative, not to say insulting. Wanting to take advantage and set up as someone who launches the political debate by commenting on it, not to mention measures, not to mention concrete announcements, may seem like something you don’t understand. But it is a bit the mark of Emmanuel Macron.
What is the desired effect?
In fact, you have to see it as a kind of government reality show. We enter the political season with something quite new: this intervention which is not intended for the French but which is intended to coach his team. Except that for the French, this comment, “the end of abundance”, it’s something they’ve been experiencing for a very long time and so it can appear to be very largely out of step. The only advantage it has is that the global echo in Europe is quite significant. This opens, during the holidays, a political conversation both in France and in Europe. It can indeed shock but it has the merit at least to take the advantage.
Is there a change of course on the part of the president who this time uses anxiety-provoking words when he has been trying until now to have positive speeches?
It’s true that within the crises, he rather played the role of the one who wanted to calm things down, who said “we’ll get out of this”. But wanting to dramatize is also pre-justifying difficult measures, perhaps announcements on energy, prices, heating this winter, power cuts. Inevitably the oppositions are forced to wake up and that’s kind of what he’s looking for.
He declares the end of abundance as dividends paid to shareholders hit a record high in the second half of the year and the proposed superprofits tax was rejected by the majority. Doesn’t that give the impression of a discrepancy between words and deeds?
Indeed, there is this gap between observation and intervention. NGOs and observers denounce it. The president is stuck in a neutrality, which means that he does not take into account the fact that in our pockets there will be less and less money, while the stock market results are good. The president embodies this discrepancy. This is the danger. Playing with words, in a changing context, he takes a risk. He takes a risk to shock, take advantage, mark people on vacation and tell naysayers who are still on vacation that he is at work. This cynicism can be dangerous for him.