France experienced the second round of early parliamentary elections this weekend, which was exceptional by all standards. The voter turnout reached 67.50%, a level not seen since 1981. These elections were unprecedented in terms of results that deeply altered the political scene, clearly indicating that the laws regulating the Fifth Republic, established by the historical leader Charles de Gaulle, are incapable of framing the new political landscape. The state's institutions call for a comprehensive constitutional reform.
It is well-known that the Fifth Republic, founded after World War II, operated on a system of alternation between two parties, which allowed France to consistently achieve a parliamentary majority capable of governing. Since then, France has witnessed a smooth transition of power between the right and the left. Consequently, the strong far-right in France has not been able to reach power or even enter parliament, as the two-round voting system and established traditions to unite against it under the banner of protecting the values of the Republic have prevented the far-right from nearing centers of influence and power.
This situation persisted until signs of weakness appeared in the traditional parties of the Republican right and the left, a condition that French President Emmanuel Macron exploited in 2017 during his first presidential term. He chose to govern in the center, distancing himself from traditional right and left, and opted for governance in general away from party and community intermediaries, leading to a further weakening of parties and civil society organizations, thus undermining their capacity for structuring, which opened wide the door for extremist forces from both the right and the left.
Many observers believe that the middle governance approach blocked the way for traditional party alternatives that operate in complete harmony with the laws of the French Fifth Republic, thus paving the way for extremism from both sides, making it a potential alternative. It does not seem that President Macron fully understood the implications of this for political system stability and societal unity.
The risk President Macron took lies, first, in his strategic choice of viewing the far-right as a permanent political adversary, considered a pariah by society; second, in his absolute reliance on the ongoing rejection from all political, party, and community sides regarding the scenario of this far-right reaching power; and third, from the president's perspective, he took a substantial and uncalculated risk because this choice was not accompanied by economic, social, and political policies capable of improving the situation of the French citizen, who has been accustomed to a state that protects his interests and is generous in its offerings, as well as in wealth redistribution policies. This explains the angry societal movement experienced at the end of President Macron’s first term.
Furthermore, the fourth reason contributing to the current crisis in France is President Macron's insistence on monopolizing decision-making and marginalizing state institutions, especially the parliament. The election results have undermined the pillars of this policy and inflicted a severe defeat on the French president that may entirely remove him from the decision-making circle despite the extensive powers granted to him by the French constitution. These elections have shifted the center of decision-making power from the presidency at the Élysée Palace to the National Assembly and parliament.
This opens an irreversible door to a real parliamentary system, which may not stabilize either in light of the presence of three political and party poles, necessitating a comprehensive constitutional reform to achieve a majority capable of governing and to redistribute powers between the president and parliament. These elections seem to have restored the position of political parties and civil society organizations, indicating that democracies are still unable to transcend the party system and societal intermediaries.
Consequently, the results were "retributive" against President Macron's policy of nullifying the role of parties, and these elections announced, according to many observers, the end of "Macronism," named after President Emmanuel Macron, despite his continuing denial and refusal to acknowledge defeat in these elections.
The exceptional nature of these elections forces everyone to find a new political equation that considers the voting results, which granted the French left the first place and the far-right a larger standing than in the previous parliament. There is no avoiding alignment with the will of the French voter; otherwise, the continuation of President Macron's term will be in doubt.
France stands at a crossroads, and the French president and the political class in general find themselves in an unenviable position. They must either provide a political will to draft a new social and political contract that takes into account the new variables, or face an ambiguous fate whose outcomes no one can predict.
