Macron’s Gamble, Cordon Sanitaire, Kicking the Can Down the Road Yet Again, RN Denied, Left Wing Economics, Migration at the Heart of Political Dispute

It’s been one hell of a ride over here in Europe these past few weeks, and this is all thanks to electoral politics becoming interesting (very interesting, to be honest) over this past decade. Fifteen years ago, elections in Europe came and went with little fanfare as outcomes and party platforms were entirely predictable, and mavericks few and far between. Liberal democracy was manageable and horribly uninteresting.

Populism changed all of that overnight. Due to the many unforced errors made by governing elites (and compounded by their own arrogance), populist revolts began to be shaped and take place across Europe. The previously-successful micro-management of democracy suffered from a desire to over-engineer countries and societies, with their negative consequences serving as the fuel for the nascent populism that began to threaten their hold on power. Ever since then, the elites and their managers have decided that hysteria and paranoia was the best defense against these political upstarts, and that closing ranks by continuously narrowing the acceptable definition of “democracy” to ensure that these bomb throwers were left outside of it was the proper course of action. “We are not wrong as we are democrats. It’s the people who are wrong.”

I have been trying to write a comprehensive overview of the political and security scene in Europe as a sort of ‘mental reset’ for myself and for those that enjoy reading my writing. This has been very difficult to do over these past few weeks, as there has been so much that has happened (feel free to note my usage here -ed.) and that quite a few wheels are turning in different directions. I have scrapped three versions of that essay already, and all three were on the cusp of being published. Yet I would hesitate hitting “publish” every single time, as I was not content with the final product. My hesitation was borne out of the realization that I was missing something important, something that would tie it all together. I am still yet to figure out exactly what that “tie” is and have been beating myself up for weeks due to my inability to do so.

“Why not break it up into pieces, Nic?”

Might as well……..

It is common knowledge that Germany is Europe’s most important country due to its size and especially due to its economy, but France is the continent’s most dynamic country, and because of that it is also the one that has the most capacity for upsetting the carefully-crafted post-WW2 and post-Cold War systems.

Unlike its neighbour to its immediate east, France has never let go of its pride and patriotism (and in many cases, its nationalism as well). It is the only European NATO member with sovereign control over its own nuclear arsenal, for example. The French have a generalized tendency to overstate their own importance on the global stage, which should be obvious to anyone who has ever encountered a French person. This collective self-confidence has created the conditions for a dismissive attitude towards others, something that the French will defend as “well-deserved”. It is this inherent self-confidence that powers this political dynamism because it is teamed up with an introverted political culture as well. Therefore, whatever the French choose to do is important, regardless of what others think of their choices.

The French political scene stretches across the whole of the political spectrum, unlike its neighbour across the Channel, or the big one across the ocean. Political discussion and debate are both wide ranging and very public, making France’s Overton Window more stretched out than most western countries. It has viable political parties and candidates representing not just the centre and centre-right and centre-left, but also the far left, the far right, monarchists, Catholic Traditionalists, Islamists, and so on. Beyond that, it has powerful trade unions that will drop tools at a moment’s notice if the government dares to try to introduce any economic reforms seen as coming at their expense. It has political groupings made up of the remnants for neo-fascist militant groupings. It also has experienced repeated waves of Islamist terror. France has it all.

Even if France is as dynamic as I claim it to be, it is still within the liberal-democratic system that rules today’s “West”. Because of this, France too suffers from many of the same maladies afflicting its neighbours and allies. An obvious first example is deindustrialization as a result of globalization. The French have done a good job protecting certain export sectors such as agriculture, but if you go to the northeast of the country, you find a wasteland. A second example is the growing divide between centre and periphery, whereby more and more power, wealth, and influence is concentrated in the centre. This is compounded in France by the fact that the country is highly centralized when compared to Germany or the USA. A third example is the massive tide of immigration that has flooded the country, something that we will get to soon enough.

It is the fourth example that I would like to draw the most attention to; the erosion of the political centre. France’s administrative state is the perfect example of Burnham’s “Managerial Elite”, not just because of the high level of administrative centralism in France (something that inspired the totalitarianism of fascism and communism), but because their ruling elites are a special caste all themselves, raised from their youth to be part of specific circles that attend the same schools which produce these same managers. Several generations of this method have created this caste that is distant, very distant, from the people that they govern. They are distant culturally, philosophically, economically, socially, and more often than not, geographically from their fellow Frenchmen and women. This distance has only increased over time, and has manifested itself in the huge chasm separating the ruling elites of France from the French people, especially in political terms.

We have seen the centre erode (but not disappear) throughout the continent thanks to the rising tide of populism, and France is no exception to this rule. Successive governments run by the centre/centre-right/centre-left have failed to address the causes of the malaise that has governed the country for decades now. Whether Sarkozy, Hollande, or Macron, the French have been unable to reform their own country in order to give it the necessary jolt to wake it up from its slumber. There are many reasons for this, too many to get into in this essay, but it is the inability of France to correct course that has seen French voters turn to parties outside of the acceptable mainstream in order to seek solutions to the problems that bedevil the country.

The British have the reputation of “muddling through” any kind of political crisis or instability (or even scandal), but the French have done much the same these past few decades. The general trend in French governance has been:

1. a promise of a vast economic structural reform


2. a violent reaction from powerful trade unions to said reform


3. a step-down by the government in the face of these protests


4. rounds of Islamist terrorist attacks


5. unrelenting mass immigration


6. a rise in support for anti-immigration parties, especially the RN


7. the application of the notorious cordon sanitaire to keep the RN out of power

The net effect of all of these points has been to continually punt the ball at every opportunity, or, if you prefer, a repetition of “kicking the can down the road”. This has not made France a better country to live in, nor has it made it stronger or wealthier, but it has preserved both the ruling system and the ruling elites.

Every successive punt of the ball is less effective than the previous one. France is nowhere near as powerful globally nor economically as it was during the era of President Chirac. This is best exemplified by both its supplicant Atlanticist foreign policy first introduced by President Sarkozy, and especially by its eviction from large swathes of formerly French-ruled North Africa. Not only is France spinning its wheels, the motor is making very funny sounds that are getting louder and louder.

The Fifth French Republic has a tradition in which the powerful Presidency is paired with a government friendly to the occupier of that office. This has allowed for the smooth sailing of the centralized bureaucratic state despite the continuously choppier waves in its path. This safeguard has worked….until now.

So what happened to it?

One month ago, elections to the EU Parliament were held and the results from Germany and France sent the proverbial “shockwaves” across the continent. In Germany, AfD gained 16% of the vote, making it the second most popular party in the country, ahead of all the parties in the present ruling coalition, including Germany’s oldest party, SPD. This in itself was a big shock, especially considering the fact that AfD is now the most popular among German youth.

The French shockwave was even more significant:

RN got more than double the votes that Macron’s Renaissance managed to score. This made RN by far the most popular political party in France, a party that is very much not allowed in polite company in that country or anywhere else in the West.

This is how the map of France looked after the vote for the EU Parliamentary election:

(I do not need to tell you which party is represented by the colour blue)

Here was one reaction:

In both the 2017 and 2022 French Presidential elections, Macron managed to defeat Marine Le Pen in the second round of voting thanks to the application of the cordon sanitaire. This kept her and her motley crew out of office. In the meantime, RN began the hard work of building the party at the local and national level, and last month’s vote showed just how much they had managed to achieve. RN is now the most popular party in France, and by a wide margin. This is totally unacceptable to the keepers of the flame of liberal democracy in France, and throughout the West. Not only does the RN have to be prevented from capturing the Presidency, but it also has to be kept out of power in the French Assembly.

“The rise of nationalists, of demagogues, is a danger for France,” Macron declared on French TV after the results of the vote were released. This led him to call a snap election for the French Assembly a whole three years before the next one was to take place.

Much speculation has arisen from Macron’s gambit, with many observers arguing that the President concluded that he could forestall any future growth of RN by putting it to an immediate test, one that would surprise all participants. If the RN were to win, it would not be able to govern with him in office, the theory goes. Another theory argued that Macron would activate the cordon sanitaire around RN to ensure another victory for his party and the political centre, energizing his office.

The initial signs were that his gamble would bear fruit as the French right immediately began to fight amongst itself due to continuing and persistent squabbles revolving around personalities. The French right came out of the gate as divided.

On the opposite site of the political spectrum, the French left managed to immediately cobble together an electoral coalition calling itself the “New Popular Front”, harkening back to the Popular Front led by Leon Blum that won the 1936 French election. A motley crew of communists, Marxists, democratic socialists, left-wing regional separatists, ecologists, and even Islamists, they charged ahead to challenge the election, with notorious red firebrand Jean-Luc Melenchon as the face of the coalition.

President Macron kept his cards close to his chest, purposely failing to inform everyone outside of his immediate circle. This infuriated many of his allies, with ex-French Ambassador to the USA Gerard Araud describing his gamble as:

A reckless decision had thrown France under the bus. The bus has come…. France is heading towards a far-right government or an ungovernable parliament. Two unpalatable outcomes.

Anger was palpable among Macron’s supporters, nowhere moreso than in the French Assembly where members of his party were upset that they would have to campaign only two years after the last one, and “unnecessarily” at that.

On the international scene, the main fear revolved around what an RN government would do regarding Ukraine. Marine Le Pen did not hesitate for a second to state that she would “clip Macron’s wings”:

In explosive remarks, Le Pen dismissed the French president’s title of commander-in-chief as “an honorary title,” and argued the real power, in particular over the budget, rested with the prime minister’s government.

“Jordan [Bardella] has no intention of picking a quarrel with Macron, but he has set red lines. On Ukraine, the president will not be able to send troops,” Le Pen said in an interview with the daily Le Télégramme.

Macron said earlier this month he was “finalizing” plans to send military trainers to Ukraine, and tensions over relations with Russia are likely to be front and center in the debate over France’s strategic direction.

Not only did Macron upset his own constituency, he also managed to worry his international backers and partners.

Regardless of their protests, the die was cast.

The first round of voting (where voters can choose any candidate on the ballot) did not go well at all for Macron and Ensemble.

Polish Premier Donald Tusk took to Twitter/X immediately to issue a warning:

They love Putin, money and power without control. And they are already in power or are reaching for it in the East or West of Europe. They are joining ranks in the European Parliament. In Poland, we reversed this fatal tide at the very last moment. Let’s not waste it.

Ricarda Lang of Germany’s Green Party criticized Macron’s gamble:

“Macron’s move to call new elections was a miscalculation and has now probably contributed to strengthening the far right.”

Young voters overwhelmingly rejected the centre:

It was clearly time to re-activate the trusty cordon sanitaire, as demanded by French journalist Agnes Poirier:

Far Left Mélenchon and President Macron agree on one thing tonight ! They urge voters to stop Le Pen’s party win an absolute majority next Sunday by supporting the best placed candidate against Le Pen, whatever their political colour.

Not everyone jumped aboard, however. Macron’s Finance Minister described Melenchon’s party France Insoumise (France Unbowed) as:

“….a vote “against the French nation, for communalism, antisemitism and violence”.

Macron urged voters to support whichever candidate was up against RN, no matter which party or coalition they represented. Would it work?

The cordon sanitaire managed to hold.

Tactical voting saw a largely three-way split for seats in the upcoming French Assembly, denying RN not just a majority, but both first and second place. Tactical voting was aided by a very high turnout:

Where it gets very interesting is when you look at the popular vote vs. the allotment of seats:

The RN-led coalition scored 37.1% of the popular vote, but only got 142 seats in the assembly.

Macron’s Ensemble got 25.43% of the popular vote, but got 159 seats.

The New Popular Front got 25.8% of the popular vote, earning them the most seats at 180.

Despite the cordon sanitaire doing its job yet again, Macron’s gamble failed, at least according to French political analyst Francois Valentin:

“He lost 80 seats and his MPs now hate his guts. He has accelerated his “lame duckisation” And if he governs with the left they’ll unravel what he did over the last 7 years. This is a pyrrhic defeat.”

Translation: France’s centre has significantly eroded.

If Macron chooses to rely on the New Popular Front (NFP), he will have to negotiate with a coalition whose economic platform includes:

“…..raise the monthly minimum wage to €1,600, impose price ceilings on essential foods, electricity, gas and petrol, repeal Macron’s deeply unpopular decision to raise the retirement age to 64 and invest massively in the green transition and public services.”

This makes investors very, very nervous:

Despite the prospect of weeks of political uncertainty, the newly founded NFP has already started detailing its post-election plans. The alliance includes the far-left movement France Unbowed, the Socialist Party, the Greens and the Communist Party.

The new largest group in the National Assembly is promising generous measures to boost voters’ purchasing power. They are planning on withdrawing Macron’s 2023 controversial pension reform that raised the minimum retirement age from 62 to 64 years. The NFP intends to reduce that threshold to 60 years.

“It’s surreal — France faces a financially dire situation, and yet, all the parties, including Macron’s, are trying to lure voters by promising to lavish money on them,” Crevel said. “Politicians have been doing this for the past 40 years, but now we’re close to the precipice.”

France’s public debt in 2023 stood at about 110% of GDP with its budget deficit amounting to 5.5%. The European Union recently opened an excessive deficit procedure against France, as the EU’s Stability and Growth Pact only allows for a public debt of 60% of GDP and a 3% budget deficit.

But despite a spendthrift agenda from the NFP and Le Pen’s RN, investors seem to prefer the far-right party’s economic platform, Crevel said, going into Sunday’s runoff.

“The NFP are anti-capitalist and anti-European, as they want to leave the Stability and Growth Pact and international free trade agreements, whereas the RN is no longer openly displaying anti-EU views — although their platform is incompatible with European rules,” Crevel said.

This would be a 180 turn away from Macron’s efforts to restructure France’s economy to make it more competitive globally. In actuality, it would destroy France’s economy, as capital flight would take place immediately, and neither of these two excerpts mention the calls for a 90% income tax for higher earners.

Does the NFP look like a possible candidate for a governing coalition with the centrist Ensemble?

And then there’s their platform on migration:

To call this immigration platform “progressive” would be an understatement. It is this platform, one that they are very serious about, that is the most damaging to France in the short, medium, and long terms. Not only would it effectively destroy the political centre, it would empower the French right and most certainly lead to violent civil strife. Nowhere is the erosion of the political centre in France more visible than when it comes to migration. Two sides, both increasing in support and strength, pulling in totally opposite directions, with the centre breaking apart. Much like how the current conflict in Gaza cannot be resolved until the underlying issue is as well, the inability to come to agreement on migration means that conflict in France is inevitable. Will it become violent? That remains to be seen.

Macron’s only hope lies in trying to peel off enough coalition members from both the left and right to form a “national unity” government, as his party cannot govern with the NFP as it is, and outright refuses to allow RN into government. The only other option is a technocratic government that would last one year under France’s constitutional rules, with another general election to follow. There is an inevitability hanging in the air that RN eventually will gain power.

France is now on the cusp of being totally ungovernable due to the repeated failure of the ruling elites to deliver a better France. This is an indictment not just of the French ruling class, but of liberal democracy as well.

Leave a comment