It’s no secret that the German capital, Berlin, is worried about the possible outcome of the French parliamentary elections. First, there is the weight represented by France as the second largest economy in the European Union. Second, France is the only permanent member of the EU and the UN. The Security Council has veto power. Third, it is the only one with nuclear power.
In addition to the above, the Berlin-Paris axis has always been an archive for the European project that came to replace the wars between the two countries. In the last decades, the German-French “twin” has created the engine that pushes it forward, and it now includes 27 European countries and is preparing to open its arms to Ukraine and Moldova, and a group of other European countries are waiting. The door must be opened for them to enter the Paradise of Union.
Go into the unknown
This is not the first time a French president has dissolved parliament and called early elections.
General Charles de Gaulle, founder of the Fifth Republic, did so twice, and Socialist President François Mitterrand followed in his footsteps, followed by Jacques Chirac at the Elysee Palace.
However, there are differences that make the current situation very different from what France has known in the past. In past decades, elections have led to the victory of the traditional right, allied with the center or the left as the “government” is called and supported by the Socialist Party. When he won the presidency for the first time in 1981, based on a “coalition plan” that included all shades of the left, including the Communist Party, Mitterrand did not hesitate to include two Communist ministers in his government, despite France. Membership of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the world plunged into the “Cold War”.
But, notwithstanding this, things proceeded smoothly, without trepidation, neither at home nor abroad.
Instead, Macron’s decision caused a political earthquake that will have decades-long ramifications for France’s political, economic and social life. What is significant is that those close to Macron, such as Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, Speaker of the House of Representatives Yael Brown-Biwitt, his partners in power and his former Prime Minister Edouard Philippe… because his decision was “unjustified”, especially after the unprecedented victory of the “National Rally” party in the European elections, As it won more than twice as many as the three-party coalition, nothing forced him to dissolve parliament. Era and supporting the government, namely “Tajadid”, “Democracy Movement” and “Horizon”.
Macron’s decision shocked the public. Therefore; He tried more than once to explain his intentions and convince his companions of the correctness of his decision, but he did not succeed. Content with the “advice” of a narrow committee, press reports show that he made his decision without any consultation, ignoring the constitutional requirement to consult with the Speakers of the House of Representatives and the Senate. to him
Macron’s wrong bet
Within days of the dissolution of parliament it became clear that the French president’s “bet” was wrong. To understand his decision, it should be noted that previous parliamentary (legislature) elections had only provided a relative majority in parliament, unlike during his previous tenure when his successive governments enjoyed a loose majority to approve all draft laws. That was submitted to Parliament.
Indeed, in the last two years of his second term, Elizabeth Born’s government, and then Gabriel Attal’s, had to bargain, sometimes with the right and at other times with the left and the Greens, to deliver the necessary majority. The “sword” of taking self-confidence away from her was always close to her neck, and it could have fallen if opponents left and right agreed to remove her.
But despite the weakness of the political situation, two years of the era passed and political life continued at its usual pace. Therefore, political analysts consider Macron’s gesture “irresponsible” and based on miscalculations. No, many drew comparisons to what happened in Germany, where the Social Democrats won the same percentage as Macron’s coalition with the far-right Alternative Party. Germany’s political life has returned to its previous state, awaiting the upcoming general elections.
Computer crisis
Those in the know say Macron is betting on two things in his decision: first, on the deep divisions within the French between the “France Proud” party led by former presidential candidate Jean-Luc Mélenchon on the one hand. On the other hand are other elements… especially the Socialist Party and the “Greens. The other is the weakness of the traditional French right represented by the “Republican Party” – the successor of Gaulism – and its belief that there is a possibility of forming a “centrist coalition” comprising the three parties that traditionally support it. The moderate left and the traditional Candidates from the right can join it.
However, both races failed: the left succeeded in record time in turning the page on differences and forming a “new popular front” with a specific electoral program. As for the traditional right, its leader Eric Ciotti aligned with the far right, while its remaining pillars rejected the presidential offer. Later, Stéphane Segournet, the foreign minister and head of Macron’s “Renewal” party, quickly announced that a “centrist coalition” would avoid fielding contenders to facilitate the re-election of “centrist” right-wing candidates. And encourage them to co-operate in the future government.
In the twenty days since the dissolution of parliament, the presidential campaign (ie President Macron himself) has focused on “exaggerating” control, particularly threatening the far-right’s rise to power and highlighting contradictions within the left. Mélenchon, head of the far-left “Proud France” party, has been denounced and accused of “anti-Semitism” because of his stances on the Israeli war on Gaza. Indeed, this allegation has become a “chorus”… it is repeated endlessly at election rallies and on television.
I…or “Civil War”
Therefore, the picture of the political situation in France is based on the following picture: there are three political groups led by the far-right group – i.e. the “National Rally” – led by Marine Le Pen and led by Jordan Bartella (the candidate of the “Rally” for Prime Minister), which will receive 35. percent of the vote. Subsequent polls suggest. The second place, according to polls, is occupied by the “New Popular Front” (left), whose percentage of votes varies by about 30 percent. As for the “centrist coalition”, it could not cross the 20 percent threshold.
However, translating these percentages into seats in the next parliament seems more difficult for specialized institutions. Due to the smallest district based electoral system. France comprises 577 electoral districts, each with its own data, but according to the data available to date, none of the three groups will have an absolute majority in the next parliament (289 representatives). Since it is difficult to expect any two of the three groups to govern together, President Macron’s remaining three years at the Elysee will rely on parliament to form a government capable of passing laws and leading the country. It would be a miracle.
The French constitution states that the president cannot dissolve parliament again until one year has passed since the first dissolution. This means Macron will be effectively handcuffed, unable to secure an absolute parliamentary majority or even a relative majority due to the tyranny of the far-right and the “New People’s Front”. It is clear here that France is moving beyond a political crisis to a real crisis. Instead, it’s a “crisis of governance” with political deadlock heading toward it…unless the far-right wins an absolute majority, which many analysts say could happen.
In a written message Macron addressed to the French public through regional newspapers earlier in the week, he focused on two things: one of them was the governing program of the far right and what he called the “extreme left.” France will open the door to various crises. Another is to ensure that the “center coalition” has no salvation other than gaining a majority.
However, the next day the President went further; He warned in a “podcast” that France would slide into “civil war” if the “National Rally” or “Proud France” party (via the “New People’s Front”) came to power. The far-right classifies citizens based on their religion and origin, while “proud France” adopts a “communist approach”.
The warning sparked violent reactions, accusing the president of “irresponsibility”. “It is not permissible for the President of the Republic to make such a statement,” Bartella said, while accusing Mélenchon of “always trying to fan the flames.” Moreover, this statement raised a strong surprise even among the “Macronism” ranks. One of its representatives accused him of “losing his political compass” and trying to scare older citizens into returning to his party’s embrace.
Indeed, opinion polls show that the upcoming elections will produce a referendum of sorts for Macron, who has been in power for seven years to date. It also seems likely that the election will lead to a chaotic parliament due to the weakness of government scenarios available based on election results.
…Finally, Macron and the “central coalition” have a puzzle to solve, which deals with the second election round on Sunday, July 7 and the content of the “advice” they will give their voters. The event limited the competition to one far-right candidate and another from the “New Popular Front” … and what would they have to choose between cholera and the plague?
