French President Macron’s unexpected decision on June 9 to dissolve the National Assembly and call for early legislative elections was a bold and high-stakes move following a major defeat for the ruling coalition in the European elections. Though the outcomes of the first round aren’t decisive, Macron’s wager looks likely to backfire, reinforcing the critiques from his opponents regarding his performance.
This paper doesn’t aim to provide a partial or exhaustive picture of the French political landscape, which is as intricate as the nation’s crisis-or as any legislative election spanning 577 distinct districts. Instead, it seeks to explore key questions about politicians’ performance and their disconnect from reality, decision-making processes, crisis management strategies, the influence of luck on national trajectories, and other related issues.
Confidence Crisis Hitting Macron
First, I want to eliminate the possibility of attributing the French president’s behavior and decisions to stupidity, albeit recognizing the significant impact of the French President’s psychological traits on his behavior and decisions. The French President is indeed highly intelligent, with remarkable perseverance and an impressive ability to work long hours. He possesses a substantial philosophical and cultural background, and a profound understanding of modern economic mechanisms and social issues. During his tenure, he has achieved numerous commendable milestones and skillfully enacted several essential reforms. However, he has failed to maintain the confidence of the French public and his international peers, largely due to his frequent and surprising decisions that, despite being well-considered, often seem haphazard and impulsive.
The erosion of public confidence in him has both general and personal roots. Broadly, this mistrust stems from the cultural and psychological estrangement between the vast majority of Parisians—and, to a lesser extent, those in other major cities benefiting from globalization—and the rest of France, particularly the regions that have been severely impacted by industrial decline and the poor performance of public facilities. For example, there is a pervasive sentiment among residents of smaller towns, villages, and rural areas that they are increasingly overtaxed, their purchasing power is constantly eroding, and the services provided by public institutions and facilities—such as security, healthcare, postal services, education, public transportation, and the judiciary—are significantly deteriorating. They feel neglected compared to the residents of major cities and nearby suburbs, who are often immigrants or their descendants.
In simple terms, the culture of major cities tends to be right-wing liberal in economic and administrative matters and left-wing liberal on cultural and sovereignty issues. This contrasts with the culture of medium and small towns and the countryside, which leans towards nationalist right-wing views on cultural and political issues and leftist (essentially social democratic) views on economic and social matters. Suburban residents, meanwhile, either align with rural sentiment or adopt leftist or sectarian views on all fronts. This underlying divide existed before Macron took office, but it has deepened during his tenure.
Another source of this mistrust lies in the president’s performance, style, and the public’s perception of him—or rather, the public image he has cultivated. This image is marred by his chronic missteps in communication, creating the impression that he often speaks without truly meaning what he says. His language is frequently perceived as convoluted and difficult to understand, and there’s a widespread belief that he frequently contradicts himself. While this impression may not be entirely accurate, it is nonetheless pervasive. Further contributing to this image are his authoritarian tendencies, his monopolization of power, and his involvement in all aspects of governance. He appears to lack confidence in the expertise and knowledge of state agencies, preferring instead to heed the opinions of intellectuals, academics, and a select few individuals. Additionally, he gives the strong impression that dealing with sovereign issues frustrates him, preventing him from focusing on what he considers more important areas, such as economic, financial, and scientific matters. This doesn’t mean he refuses to allocate resources and time to sovereign issues or that all his decisions in these areas are wrong. Instead, it suggests that the public views him as primarily a banker with firm convictions in economic, financial, and scientific domains, that his opinions on other matters seem variable or less significant to them, and that he appears disconnected from the French “collective imagination and mind.”
Uniting Center-Led Forces, Revamping the Economy, and Boosting Efficiency: A Political and Economic Project
It is essential to underscore the importance and implications of the president’s political and economic agenda, his streak of bad luck, and his personal involvement in his predicaments. The political project that the president has championed is not entirely new; it has been a part of the political conversation since the latter half of the first decade of this millennium, well before the president came into the spotlight.
This project involved forging a substantial centrist bloc, born from the discontent among various groups and movements within right wing and center-right factions with the traditional right-wing parties’ stances on cultural and economic liberalism and their hesitancy towards the European unity project. Similarly, it emerged from the discontent among left-of-center forces and the Socialist Party with the leftist parties’ stances, including the Socialist Party and Greens, on market economy mechanisms, cultural and economic liberalism, and, at times, the European project. These right wing, centrist, and left-wing factions realized their common ground had grown remarkably profound. They recognized that traditional parties were hindered by the diversity of their social bases and the conflicting demands within these bases, leaving them unable to move forward with the necessary actions to address the significant challenges facing France—a response that had been delayed for too long.
The goal of this project was to establish a “circle of rational minds” who supported the European project, market economies, and an environmentally conscious economic transition while also addressing social issues. The “success of this endeavor significantly weakened” the Republican and Socialist parties, which had governed France for most of the Fifth Republic. This shift redefined the political landscape into a centrist bloc that secured the presidency twice, with an absolute majority in Parliament once and a relative majority another time; a large nationalist right party (far right); a sizable far-left party; and traditional parties like the Republican right, Socialists, Greens, and Communists, which retained a reasonable local presence but were weak in presidential and legislative elections. I originally mentioned that the “success of this endeavor significantly weakened the Republican and Socialist parties,” but a more precise depiction might be that “this project capitalized on the significant vulnerabilities that had already plagued these parties.”
Broadly speaking, the president and his supporters had a clear interest in establishing a polarized political environment: a progressive bloc bringing together the “rational minds” from the right and left, pursuing policies that alternated between right-wing and left-wing ideas, contrasted against extremism on both ends of the spectrum. This inevitably led to the weakening of traditional parties. However, this high-stakes strategy, akin to an “après moi, le déluge” approach, was compounded by the president’s relatively weak electoral base, which comprised about 18% of the overall electorate (24-25% of those who voted). Among these, many supported the coalition as the least damaging option rather than out of conviction.
President Macron spearheaded this political venture and outlined an economic strategy aimed at bolstering France’s competitiveness, reducing taxes, re-industrializing, driving an environmental economic transition, and addressing pension and social security issues by adjusting the retirement age and streamlining the healthcare system. Additionally, he opposed all forms of rent-seeking behavior, seeking to discourage investment in real estate and promote investment in innovative tech startups. This ambitious project saw undeniable successes.
Unexpected Crises
Macron’s tenure was marred by misfortune, although his approach and rhetoric certainly aggravated the situation. He inherited a daunting legacy: misguided economic policies dating back to the 1980s and the global financial crisis at the end of the first decade of the millennium had already taken a heavy toll on France. The performance of numerous ministries and public services had declined. Macron’s eagerness to accelerate reforms—partly to demonstrate their benefits before the 2022 elections and partly because they were long overdue—only heightened tensions, making him appear disconnected from the public’s concerns.
This led to the eruption of the violent yellow vest protests in November 2018, which required painful compromises and significant spending to suppress. The violence and deep-seated animosity towards Macron left a profound psychological impact on him. This trauma, alongside the stark decline in the healthcare system and the fear of new uprisings, compelled him to commit vast, almost extravagant, resources to manage the Covid-19 pandemic. Despite its success, this approach faced criticism for its fiscal irrationality. Lastly, the Russian invasion of Ukraine precipitated a major crisis in energy and food prices, adding another layer of difficulty to his presidency.
For these reasons and others, the harvest of the years of the presidency came as follows: essential reforms, deemed necessary yet unpopular, alongside a deteriorating financial situation with mounting debt reaching critical levels, and a decline in the purchasing power of the populace. It has become increasingly challenging to commend the president’s economic acumen, criticize competitors’ economic policies, and assert their lack of fiscal prudence.
Moreover, the president struggled to enhance security or effectively address issues of immigration, education, and culture. His fluctuating handling of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and significant setbacks in African diplomacy, despite some achievements, left a detrimental impression of his leadership abilities. It is conceivable that he harbors a sense of injustice and disappointment for failing to quell the animosity directed towards him
Drivers for the Dissolution of the French National Assembly
Elections to the European have distinct characteristics. They are proportional list elections held in a single round, and their outcomes do not directly impact the state’s political system or government. This leads many citizens to either abstain from voting or use the elections as an opportunity to express discontent with the government without facing any repercussions. Essentially, these elections often serve as a symbolic rebuke to those in power.
The president’s management of these elections was notably poor. He appointed an obscure figure, Valerie Heyer, to lead his coalition list—despite her competence, she was virtually unknown. He also pushed through contentious legislation during the campaign and, most damagingly, both he and his Prime Minister treated Heyer with open, unwarranted distrust, undermining her position.
Despite accurate opinion poll forecasts and the historical trend of ruling parties performing poorly in these elections in France, the president was taken aback by the results. His list garnered less than 15% of the vote, less than half of Marine Le Pen’s party’s tally. Mere hours after the results were announced, the president declared the dissolution of the National Assembly, citing that “the votes cast in the European election put the far-right forces at almost 40% and the extremes (on the right and left) at almost 50%. This is a political fact that cannot be ignored.” He asserted that returning to the people was in line with democratic principles and expressed his trust in the electorate.
Subsequent press reports painted a detailed picture: the president had been considering dissolution for several months, assigning a small, elite team—noticeably devoid of any election or polling experts—to study the option and devise scenarios. His dissatisfaction with the current parliament was evident: his supporters lacked an absolute majority and had to negotiate with other factions to pass legislation. Additionally, representatives from the extreme left-wing La France Insoumise party had been protesting and behaving in ways that he deemed undignified for parliament.
Political insiders in Paris had speculated that the president might be compelled to dissolve Parliament in September if the government’s budget was rejected. The sudden decision caught the government and party members off guard. Photos of the Prime Minister, taken moments after he was informed of the decision, showed him looking shocked, immobilised, and pale. Reports confirmed that the presidency leaked these images to “restrain” the prime minister and emphasize that the president was solely in charge of the decision.
Risky Accounts
From the outset, it was evident that Macron’s decision was a high-stakes gamble and that it was based on several considerations. The disastrous results in the European election can be attributed to numerous factors: a lack of repercussions for a harsh punitive vote, low voter turnout among the president’s supporters, and a shift among some supporters towards voting for the Socialist Party as a form of protest against the president. The president had banked on the idea that, when faced with a choice between his coalition and Marine Le Pen’s party, the electorate would rally behind him. He believed that all those who despised Le Pen, as well as those with savings and a desire for stability, would see the extreme danger posed by the right-wing party’s agenda, its fanaticism, and its incompetent cadres and thus would support his party, enabling him to expand his base. Even supposing that Marine Le Pen’s party were to win the elections and secure a majority in Parliament, they would find themselves governing under challenging conditions: their majority would likely be slim, and opponents eager to derail their efforts would be relentless. Additionally, existing debt obligations would limit their ability to implement expansive spending policies. The president, wielding significant powers, could then obstruct a government opposed to him and counteract policies he deemed hazardous to France.
As far as I judge, these calculations highlight a fundamental flaw in the French President’s perspective. While the calculations are logical and seem convincing at first glance, they completely miss the mark in understanding the diverse realities and perspectives of the French people.
First of all, they disregard the importance of timing. The president appears to expect that large segments of public opinion will instantly shift their stance and offer something akin to a “sorry, President” apology. It seems he has not grasped that his recent decision is just another instance of his tendency to rely on constant, jolting changes, which are widely rejected by the public. Furthermore, the timing imposes significant burdens on the state and its officials. Elections are always costly, requiring the mobilization of employees, committee supervisors, observers, security, and more. France has just held the European elections and is now gearing up for the massive logistical challenge of hosting the Olympic Games, which will already cause numerous holidays to be cancelled. Yet, the president is introducing a third major event with its own set of burdens and issues, without any clear rationale for the urgency.
Second, these calculations implicitly assume that the real competition is solely between Marine Le Pen’s party and the far right on one side and the president’s coalition on the other. On paper, this assumption might seem logical. The leftist forces are numerous, with contradictory and divided orientations, often hostile towards one another. There’s the Socialist Party, the Greens, the Communist Party, La France Insoumise, and several Trotskyist groups. The success of these forces in presenting a united front with a common programme in the 2022 elections was a unique circumstance, largely due to the dominant influence of La France Insoumise at that time. However, this scenario has changed. In the European elections of 2024, the Socialist Party list outperformed La France Insoumise, indicating a shift in the political landscape.
This time, the rifts seem profound and unyielding. Revolutionary fervour clashed with calls for reform, secularists faced off against proponents of a multicultural vision, and hostility between supporters and detractors of both Israel and Palestine intensified. Some factions wielded the weapons of anti-Judaism or anti-Zionism, while others found these tactics repugnant. Accusations of Islamophobia flew in all directions. Compounding the tension, the leader and founder of La France Insoumise, a figure mired in controversy, has estranged a large portion of the French populace, including leftists, with his contentious partnerships with Brotherhood movements and his perceived sectarian maneuvers.
All of this holds true, yet it overlooks a crucial aspect of French leftist culture, irrespective of its leanings. Leftist supporters fiercely uphold the unity of their ranks and parties. In the 1981 presidential elections, voters ignored the animosity between the Socialists and Communists and the latter’s efforts to prevent the Socialists from gaining power. Similarly, in 2024, the leftist base exerted immense pressure on their leaders to forge an agreement, allocate constituencies, and develop a governance programme. Although this programme is admittedly unrealistic and radically ambitious, the current president’s handling of debt and the erosion of French purchasing power strip him and his allies of the competence argument. Ultimately, voters on both the far right and far left understand that these platforms are impractical, but they give this little attention.
Additionally, Macron assumed that the anger of those who had previously supported him and chose to vote for the Socialists in the recent European elections was temporary, believing they would “return home” when the stakes were high. While this assumption might seem reasonable on paper, it currently appears misguided, either universally or under present circumstances. Indicators now suggest that the upcoming elections will be a battle for or against Marine Le Pen’s party. Those aiming to prevent her from gaining power are likely to back the strongest opposing force, which is currently the New Popular Front, a coalition of leftist groups. Ironically, we are now witnessing inadvertent support from the far left for the far right and vice versa.
Third, Macron overlooked the repercussions of this decision on his coalition members. They were blindsided, as there was no prior consultation. His move means many will lose their ministerial or administrative positions or their parliamentary seats without fault, clear reasoning, or sufficient time to plan their futures. The timing—after a dismal performance in the European parliamentary elections—seems utterly illogical to everyone. Several leaders voiced their dissent publicly, and most coalition candidates are avoiding using Macron’s image or name in their campaigns. They emphasize that their election is about endorsing a rational programme, not the president himself, asserting their independence, and promising to impose their will on him if they secure a majority. Some coalition members have even asked Macron to stay silent to avoid further provocation, a request he predictably ignored.
Fourth, it appears that Macron underestimated the possibility that some actors were intentionally exacerbating the situation to force his resignation and trigger early presidential elections, thereby giving them a shot at power. Several scenarios could unfold from this. One such scenario involves no bloc securing a majority capable of forming a government that can win parliamentary confidence. This would require cooperation from those outside the president’s coalition. While it’s conceivable that the gravity of the situation and fears of unknown international repercussions might prompt enough representatives to adopt a constructive approach, the more likely outcome—especially given the widespread discontent with the president—is that those seeking his downfall will prevail.
In defending his decision, Macron argued that appealing to the people aligns perfectly with the spirit and principles of democracy. However, this raises questions about the extent of the urgency and the principles of democracy itself. Is an election a mandate for a specific period, or is returning to the people, in certain cases, an evasion of responsibility?
Lately, the president has been increasingly vocal about the risk of civil war in France. This, to me, suggests an implicit acknowledgment of his decision’s folly, a sign of despair, and a realization that he’s likely to lose his gamble. More importantly, these statements might be laying the groundwork for invoking Article 16 of the Constitution, which grants the president exceptional powers in times of great danger.
Clearly, the repercussions of this presidential decision will extend beyond France, affecting the European Union, NATO, and Ukraine.
We will delve into this further in another paper.
