By DANIEL AFONSO DA SILVA*
The French political class and its economic and cultural elites have finally managed to throw the country into the unknown, rendering the entire regime dysfunctional.
It was predictable: a country – France – ungovernable. It was premonitory: the end of the Paris Olympics with Tom Cruise and Missão Impossível. French Prime Minister Michel Barnier has just been dismissed by Parliament after 91 days in office. Lawmakers mustered 331 votes – well above the 289 required – to censure him and eject him from office.
Jean-Luc Mélenchon was the mastermind and the tenor of the maneuver. Marine Le Pen was his supporting figure in conviction and support. The two largest political parties in France, despite their differences, were united in spirit in principle against the budget proposal presented by the Prime Minister. But in truth, their undisguised objective was always to weaken President Emmanuel Macron.
From now on, it must acknowledge defeat, accept the decision of the legislature, accept the resignation of Michel Barnier and his very brief three-month government, appoint another prime minister and review the selection of new ministers, new tactics and new strategies to overcome the variety of momentary, circumstantial and structural problems in France that are extraordinarily deep. The economic collapse is very serious. The partisan embarrassment is extremely serious. The political entropy is unprecedented. And the crisis of the regime, marked by the Fifth Republic, is close to being over.
Without mincing words, the French political class and its economic and cultural elites have finally managed to throw the country into the unknown, rendering the entire regime dysfunctional. Of course, this was due to underhanded operations. These have not been going on for a long time. They have been going on for years and years. And now, finally, with the holes widening, the hull burst and the rudder completely damaged. Repairs are unlikely to be a solution. All that remains is to acknowledge the beginning of a new season of chaos.
Forged by General Charles de Gaulle from 1958 onwards, the Fifth Republic, as a French political regime, was indeed a response to the political and moral instability of the Fourth Republic. But it was also, and fundamentally, an effort to overcome the “republic of parties”. A permanent and persistent cancer in the political life of France.
As is noted daily, the tension within the French political class has never abdicated its effervescent condition. From the Revolution, through the Restoration, advancing through the coup – farce or not – of Napoleon III, reaching the collapse of 1870-1871, embittering the aftermath of 1918 and 1929, experiencing the cataclysm of 1940, numbing itself with resistance to Nazism until 1944, picking up the pieces of the humiliation of Vichy after and trying to overcome the tropism of Eternal France versus the vulgarity of immediate management. An immediate that involved (i) national reconciliation, (ii) the reconstruction of the country and (iii) the definition of the destiny of the African colonies.
General De Gaulle had been relieved of these duties since 1946. He seemed too controversial. He had led the French Resistance since 1940. He was the unequivocal hero of the total wars of 1914 to 1945. But – perhaps also for this reason – he earned suspicion from all sides. Notably from Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who always cast a vote of no confidence in him, and particularly from President Roosevelt and the entire establishment American, who harbored a complex feeling of admiration and repulsion for him. Especially because General De Gaulle, deep down, was the quintessence of the Marquis de La Fayette – “hero of two worlds”, a fighter in the American War of Independence and the French Revolution – with all his stigma of being admired in bravery and despised in recognition.
As everyone could vividly remember, the strange defeat The French Revolution of 1940 had been a global shock. Despite the French general's extraordinary efforts to overcome this situation, after the liberation of Paris and France in 1944-1945, he was seen as a foreign body in his own country when the situation calmed down. And, as a result, he was forced to withdraw from public life and reduce himself to a simple and silent distant observer. Far from everything, but close to everyone. Especially with the advance of the Cold War.
Contrary to all appearances, the Cold War was always an essentially European problem whose impasse was due to the fate of Germany. Since Yalta and Potsdam, it had been shared between the Americans and the Soviets. This made clear the imperative of East-West tension between liberals and anti-liberals, forging a space of unforgiving rivalries internalized and symbolized by the occupation of Berlin. The Wall did not yet exist. But the Iron Curtain was already an indisputable reality.
Thus, since 1945, the possibility of a Red advance caused apprehension. Especially among the French. Who, in turn, begged for permanent and structural support from the Americans. Who, in response, returned to the Old World with the Marshall Plan and NATO. Two projects that allowed the effective reconstruction of France and the decisive internalization of French pacification notes.
But only among metropolitans. For in the colonies, especially in Africa, from 1944-1945 onwards, instead of the end of war and conflicts, the true beginning of an endless war for independence and freedom was accelerating. And for plausible reasons: the French colonists had participated in the war efforts under the aura of resistance implemented by General De Gaulle from 1943 onwards and, with the end of the struggle against Nazism in 1944-1945, their general demand moved towards the abolition of the French colonial system, regime and command. The struggle was for decolonization. But the people of Paris remained stunned and indifferent. Especially after 1946, with the departure of the general.
In this conflict, the French political class quickly returned to entropy after 1946. It was, at once, impossible to ignore African demands as they did and inconsequential to ignore the weight of the colonies on the French budget as the less experienced never managed to realize. Faced with this, the combination of insensitivity, ignorance and indifference ended up leading the country to the edge of the precipice. Generating a scenario of frank anomie. Where the Fourth Republic ceased to be functional.
This is because parliamentary pressure against granting independence to Africans led – to give a simple example – to unbearable budgetary pressures for maintaining colonial territorial integrity and, on the other hand, to reducing taxes from the colonies. And if that were not enough, the French metropolitan population – that is, civil society – was too tired of adventures and war.
To overcome the situation, he put pressure on his political class, which, unable to bear it, succumbed to immense party instability. This contaminated Parliament. Which, out of timidity, began to suffer successive convulsions. Producing 24 governments and 12 prime ministers in the legislatures of 1946 and 1958, and leading the political regime to total dysfunctionality. Without continuity or credibility in the management of its destinies. This forced the rehabilitation of General De Gaulle. Essentially to solve the colonial problem. But, fundamentally, to overcome this endless war between parties.
Summoned in 1958, the general was immediately made plenipotentiary. And, in this capacity, he hurriedly composed a Constitution. He went to Algeria – the largest and most troubled colony. He presented to the Algerians his ambiguous “I understood you"[I understood them]. He initiated the détente with all the colonies. He negotiated with practically all the metropolitan and colonial leaders. He led – sometimes calmly, sometimes less calmly – the decolonization/independence.
It repositioned France's place in the world. It forged a new internal and external projection for the country. It eliminated the possibility of automatic alignments with liberals or communists. It began to establish itself as a third way and a third voice in the world. Speaking to everyone and trying to be heard by everyone. In the name of the present, thinking of the future and in praise of the times when the world venerated France. Even so, internal pressure remained immense.
Especially because, technically, the general had been enthroned in power indirectly by a college of notables. Therefore, without popular participation or legitimacy. And, thus, whether one liked it or not, more or less, he was a hostage of the system and the parties. Which, of course, could amputate his means of action and eject him from power at any moment, as soon as his main task of solving the colonial problem was completed.
To then inhibit this possibility, the general called a referendum for the establishment of universal suffrage for the election of presidents of the Republic, starting with himself. In reaction, the group of parties in the college of notables filed a motion of censure against the government of George Pompidou, the general's prime minister, with the aim of accusing the general. The year was 1962. The month was October. The day was the 5th.
And, therefore, in compliance with article 50 of the 1958 Constitution, on that day, October 5, 1962, for the first time in the Fifth Republic, a prime minister was dismissed by parliamentary will.
But the general was not intimidated. Seeing that the intention was to weaken him, he dissolved Parliament, called new parliamentary elections, managed to form a parliamentary majority in his favor, reappointed George Pompidou as his prime minister and obtained the referendum in favor of universal presidential suffrage. And, with that, he made the dispute between parties irrelevant. Revitalizing the spirit of the new regime anchored in the 1958 Constitution. Which made the president a true monarch, with broad powers and robust legitimacy. Coming directly from the people. Without any – or almost any – commitment to parties. This is the essence of the Fifth Republic.
What has just happened in France in the first week of December 2024 is completely different from what happened in 1962. Michel Barnier has just been fired by parliamentarians and President Macron has no mechanism to “punish” parliamentarians. This is a clear return to the hateful quarrel between parties. Sterilizing the political regime of the Fifth Republic and throwing the fate of the country – of the Fifth Republic and of President Macron – into the unknown.
For a return to the Fourth Republic has become impossible and the implementation of a Sixth Republic, based on political reform, also seems unlikely. So 1958 and 1962 have now become anachronistic and 2024 has been given the stigma of horrible year French. Or rather, the year in which the accumulation of crises reached the limit of what was bearable. Because crises are multiple and varied. To mention only the most decisive ones, looking closely, the cursor can be positioned on that fateful decision to dissolve Parliament on the evening of June 9, 2024, after the overwhelming victory of Marine Le Pen's party in the elections for deputies in the European Union in Brussels.
Looking further back, December 2, 2020, September 26, 2019 and January 8, 1996 – the respective dates of the deaths of Presidents Vallery Giscard d'Estaing, Jacques Chirac and François Mitterrand – buried the last French presidents capable of bearing the burden of succeeding General De Gaulle. And looking further back, the Fifth Republic may have begun to end with the general's resignation on that terrible April 28, 1969.
Going back to the beginning and calmly retracing six months, day by day, from that fateful decision of June 9, 2024, no one fully understood President Macron’s motivations in dissolving Parliament. The elections were European. Marine Le Pen’s party – and that of its radical and extremist counterparts in Europe and around the world – has been expanding its reach in a profound and structural way since the 2008 financial crisis. So much so that it reached the second round of the French presidential elections in 2017 and 2022 – on both occasions, against Emmanuel Macron.
So it has become tacit that her rise is constant, impressive and irresistible. And, clearly, she could – sooner or later – lead Marine Le Pen or others to the presidency in 2027 or beyond. So dissolving the French Parliament under the pretext of containing the ramifications of Marine Le Pen’s party remains an intellectually fragile, morally inconsequential and politically irresponsible argument. Just like the thesis of clarification, mobilized by President Macron.
Without being too blunt in the eyes of the noble French president, the defense of this thesis borders on cynicism. The entire Macronism went into terminal crisis during President Macron's first term. After his re-election in 2022, the spoils of this crisis only grew. So forcing the people to “think better” and “review” their increased support in Marine Le Pen's party comes very close to ignominy. Or, to put it another way, it seems like a joke in very poor taste with other people's intelligence. So much so that the result of both in the legislative elections made Marine Le Pen's strength even clearer.
On the contrary, note that this result colored the Parliament with Jean-Luc Mélenchou's France Insoumise (LFI) winning 78 seats; the French Communist Party (PCF), 8; the Ecologists (LE), 28; the Socialist Party (PS), 69; various leftist parties, 10; various centrist parties, 5; François Bayrou's Democratic Movement (Modem), 33; Together – bringing together Renaissance and other allies of President Macron – 99; Horizons of former Prime Minister Édouard Phillipe under President Macron, 26; the Democratic and Independent Union, 3; Les Républicains (LR) of former President Nicolas Sarkozy, 39; various right-wing parties, 26; the LR-RN union – an alliance between Éric Ciotti and Marine Le Pen –, 17; Marine Le Pen’s RN, 125; the far-right party to the right of the RN, 1; and the Regionalist party, 9.
Aiming for alliances, the New Popular Front (NFP), led by Mélenchon, secured 182 seats. Macron's Presidential Majority (MP) secured 168. Marine Le Pen's National Rally (RN), in alliance with parts of Éric Ciotti's LR, secured 143. The Republicans group secured 46. The independent right-wing group secured 14, the left-wing group secured 13 and the center-left group secured 6. The regionalists party secured 4 and other small groups combined secured 1.
Shuffling the numbers once again and looking at them in perspective, the RN appears to be the only party with a constant, consistent and accelerated increase in its parliamentary representation over the last twenty-five years. This political force under the leadership of the Le Pens had not won any seats in 2002 or 2007. But it won two in 2012, nine in 2017, 89 in 2022 and 125 – or, in an alliance, 143 – in 2024.
The set of parties anchored in the grouping Together it won 350 after President Macron's first election in 2017, 249 after his re-election in 2022, and dropped to 156 – or 168 – seats in 2024. While Mélenchon's grouping – which also involves, against everyone's will, fractions of the PS – went from 162 in 2002 to 205 in 2007, 307 after the election of President François Hollande in 2012 to 58 in 2017, 131 in 2022 and 178 – or 182 – in 2024.
It seems more than clear that these numbers are not numbers. Looking only at the reality of 2024, after the dissolution and reconstitution of Parliament, there are 143 seats in favor of Le Pen, 168 for Macron and 182 for Mélenchon. This constitutes three disfigured and dissonant parliamentary forces. The likes of which have never been seen under the Fifth Republic.
Well, going back to the essence, the Fifth Republic presupposes governability through a parliamentary majority. Whatever that may be.
General De Gaulle and all his successors – except President Jacques Chirac in 1997 – considered dissolving Parliament as a mechanism for asserting this majority. And they succeeded.
President Macron could even intuit and may continue to imagine that this would be possible in June 2024. But no data from reality corroborates his thesis.
So, without limping with respect for the meeting of the distinguished French president fond of hopping with President Lula da Silva in the Amazon, his untimely dissolution of Parliament was, indeed, a reckless action and devoid of little or no political calculation coated in French national interest.
Hence the perplexity towards the unknown. Because in this scenario, any prime minister is likely to pass through a hostile Parliament. Which can only be dissolved again in June 2025. Too late for a political regime that, frankly, is limping.
And it falters because, in fact, “nobody won” the legislative elections. In other words, no party won enough seats to claim a majority. The minimum number would be 289 seats. Since nobody even came close, chaos ensued. Because Mélenchon’s group won 182 and believes it has the majority. Marine Le Pen’s entourage, with its 143 seats, also feels empowered. And the 168 deputies loyal to the president know that they have nothing to celebrate.
In this environment, the simple choice of a prime minister became a risk to the regime. President Macron chose Michel Barnier knowing this.
Michel Barnier is considered an experienced French politician. Of his many services, the most recent, complex and relevant was the Brexit negotiations. This demonstrated his qualities as a man with nerves of steel, Chinese patience and Rio de Janeiro wisdom. That is why he was on President Macron's radar for Matignon. But to gain the position he would need to form alliances. Essentially with Mélenchon and fundamentally with Marine Le Pen.
With the first, the answer was “no”. With the second, there was a conversation. And from this conversation emerged the perspective of integrating the 143 seats of RN with the 168 of Together as a parliamentary front to pass essential projects. The budget being the most important. At a moral cost, honestly, unbelievably unforgivable, of the naturalization of Marine Le Pen and her RN in the French political landscape.
Everything seemed fine. Really fine. Despite Mélenchon’s setbacks. Until the French judiciary began proceedings to disqualify Marine Le Pen from political office. Accusing her of political crimes – “fictitious jobs” – in the European Parliament.
Michel Barnier had been sworn in as Prime Minister in September 2024 and this legal offensive against Marine Le Pen began in October. When for two or three weeks there was nothing else to talk about other than the possibility that the main leader of the country's main political force was at risk of being eliminated from the French electoral competition.
This malaise has caused physical and spiritual discomfort everywhere, especially for Marine Le Pen, her party and her voters.
At the same time, Michel Barnier began presenting the budget to be voted on by Parliament. A complex operation, resulting from the country's structural fiscal deterioration.
The French fiscal situation has been in serious deficit for forty or fifty years. The post-pandemic and the “no matter what“[at all costs] by President Macron has simply made the situation more challenging. With the outbreak of the new phase of Russian-Ukrainian tension and its direct impact on energy supplies, what was challenging has taken on an air of despair. Given the Israeli-Palestinian situation, despair has become unbearable. And, as if that were not enough, the expectation of Donald J. Trump’s return and return to the White House have turned the nightmare into pandemonium. So Michel Barnier’s budget proposal was born unfeasible and impossible to approve.
Without going into technicalities, given all these factors, the project simply proposed an increase of nearly 40 billion euros in taxes for French taxpayers.
Among the French, as we know, everything: except tax appreciation. Notably after 2008, the euro crisis, Brexit, the Yellow Vests and the pandemic.
In any case, it was necessary to try. And to try through legislative means. In this sense, on Mélenchon's side, support – regardless of the proposal – would be zero, and it was. On the other hand, supporting a project of this type would be a betrayal of her 11 million voters. Therefore, these two parliamentary forces – the NFP and the RN, led by Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen – blocked the proposal.
In view of this, the Prime Minister used Article 49, paragraph 3, of the Constitution to pass the bill without Parliament's approval. Given the seriousness of the maneuver, Mélenchon formalized a motion of censure. This was immediately accepted by Marine Le Pen and several parliamentarians from other parties. This resulted in 331 votes of censure against Michel Barnier on December 04.
As Prime Minister under President Macron, Michel Barnier was thrown into the fire. Everyone knew that. But now, with historic airs. Not simply because it was the first resignation since 1962 and the second within the French Fifth Republic. But because, essentially, the event suggests new times. Times of turmoil. Where stability has become volatile. And no one seems to know what to do.
Simply looking at the French case, when Nicolas Sarkozy became president of the Republic in 2007, intelligentsia French, European and global politics began to signal that a world umbilically integrated into the hardships of the 1945th century was beginning to disappear. Nicolas Sarkozy was the first president of the Fifth Republic born after XNUMX and, therefore, devoid of the image of the tragic in his retinas.
But things weren't going well before then. In 2005, the French “no” to the European Constitution, under the presidency of Jacques Chirac, was a major blow. In 1992, the French “almost no” to joining the Maastricht system was another embarrassing moment. In 1981, the French “no” to the re-election of President Valery Giscard d'Estaing also remains complex. Because the Giscard dispute versus Mitterrand produced two narratives that deserve meditation.
Giscard proposed that Mitterrand be a “man of the past” while Mitterrand proposed that Giscard be a “man of the passive”.
Looking at it calmly, this “liability” referred to fiscal problems, rising unemployment, higher tax burdens and the like. All persistent problems that existed before 1981. If not much earlier. Since at least the end of the Thirty Glorious Years, which, in fact, ended in May 1968.
May 1968 and October 1962 brought the authority of the founder of the Fifth Republic into disrepute. The first time, in 1962, the general managed to endure and overcome it. The second time, in 1968, he did not. As a result, he resigned eleven months later without leaving any successor.
And for profound reasons that can be understood by carefully meditating on General De Gaulle's conceptions reported in this fabulous It was de Gaulle by Alain Peyrefitte (Paris: Fayard, 1994).
In all its aspects, the Fifth Republic was made under the general's guidance. Essentially by implying that the exercise of the presidency should be, above all, a rhetorical fact and a moral fact. Where the height [the grandeur] of France, driven by its history and culture, would serve as an objective and an obsession. And the distinction of its supreme leader would lead the country above the arrangements of the state, the law and the parties.
President Mitterrand – the only French president to serve fourteen uninterrupted years as president under the Fifth Republic – took these precepts to their ultimate consequences. The “almost” imposition of Maastricht is the most evident mark of this structural and structuring perspective.
President Chirac, in turn, tried everything – and succeeded – to follow in the general's footsteps. The French “no” to the invasion of Iraq is the best example of this.
President Macron came to power in 2017 ignoring De Gaulle, Mitterrand and Chirac and wanting to be Jupiter, the largest planet in the solar system. But now, for obtuse reasons, after the dissolution of June and the vote of censure in December, he runs a serious risk of ending up like Icarus: sailing into the unknown until he is finally torn apart by his mix of arrogance and illusion.
*Daniel Afonso da Silva Professor of History at the Federal University of Grande Dourados. author of Far beyond Blue Eyes and other writings on contemporary international relations (APGIQ). [https://amzn.to/3ZJcVdk]
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
