In France, the Prime Minister has been removed by a vote of no-confidence. President Macron has led the country for the last 6 years. His legacy now appears to be a country in crisis and a badly run economy.
No surprise, the vote of no-confidence has passed
French parliamentary representatives have just delivered the long-expected verdict on incumbent President Macron’s decision to appoint the conservative Michel Barnier (who negotiated Brexit on behalf of the EU) as Prime Minister. His budget, forced through using an article in the French constitution that allows policies to be pushed through without parliament’s approval, albeit with the caveat that a motion of no-confidence can be submitted and voted on within 48 hours, was the curtain call on his tenure. The motion was passed when parties from both the Left and right came together to bring down the government, the first time this has happened since the 1960s. It came as no surprise and as to the reason why we must look to the tenure of Emmanuel Macron as French President.
The promise of change no one really believed
Macron came to power in 2017 on a ticket of change. Stating he wasn’t the left or right of old. He claimed to be a modern centrist to represent the majority of French who were sick of the recurring bad dream and wanted a new way (remember Blair). Thing was though, he didn’t really have majority support, even though he acted as if he did. The French did what they had done on previous electoral occasions, they held their noses whilst voting for the opposition to the latest incarnation of the Le Pen dynasty. Anyone but the far-right is how it has been described.
A politician who thinks he knows best
This hubris was his first mistake and a tell-tale sign that his ego was bigger than his political nous. It is no surprise that following the damaging yellow vests protest of 2018 he was nicknamed Jupiter. A false god throwing down proclamations from above on a populace who ‘didn’t understand’ what he was trying to do. As if a lack of understanding was the reason people were unhappy and not because he had been found wanting when it came to understanding things himself. Not least, the difference between metropolitan and rural France. For example, he scrapped the wealth tax for the metropolitan elite and tried to impose a fuel tax that would adversely impact rural voters. It was a sign of things to come.
The wake-up call that went unheeded
Macron was re-elected in 2022 with a much lower margin and a dismal turnout. Again, noses were held as people chose the least bad option. Since then, he has appeared more concerned about his own world standing than the lives of those he was elected to represent. Meanwhile, competing forces were rallying people behind their banners, and this is what he failed to understand when in the July EU elections his party was routed. It was a wake-up call to focus on the issues driving people away from his party. He didn’t heed it.
The division of power
Believing he knew best (again), he called a general election, claiming that this would strengthen his position and give centrism the authority needed to control parliament and the agenda for his remaining time in power. That was a catastrophic decision for him and his party. Arguably both France itself and the EU are adversely impacted. The result saw a left coalition as the biggest parliamentary bloc, and Le Pen’s far-right as the party with the biggest vote share. A veritable nightmare was all he succeeded in delivering. Certainly not the “clear choice” he spouted as being the sure outcome of his so-called “decisive action”.
Intentional instability
When the left and right tug-o-war is joined in the middle by a weak centrist party, that has tied itself in avoidable knots, then the only thing that happens is the rope snaps and they all fall down. This was the inevitable outcome following Macron’s rather bizarre and self-defeating decision to hold a general election some 6 months ago. The French parliament is now in a stramash between the rock of far-right dogma and a hard-left viewpoint that many struggle to understand or support. A veritable political scrum, where many a hand tries to influence the direction the ball of power will travel. Certain actors at both ends of the spectrum think the turmoil may benefit them in their quest for power.
The revelation of economic ineptitude
Macron has wasted the chance to do things differently. Instead of listening and acting upon the concerns of the public it appears he pretended to. His walkabouts and meeting the public events all seemed staged to impress. Focusing more on himself and his image than on finding compromise. The opportunities afforded by the UK exit from the EU have been wasted. It has not benefitted business and employee alike. The opportunity to tax multinationals and conglomerate interests at a reasonable rate would have shown that he was unafraid to tackle big business and ensure that public projects could be financed and deficits managed within the confines of EU membership expectations. Contrary to this, his tenure sees the country in the unenviable situation of having a budget deficit of 5.5%, almost double of what the EU limit of 3%. The government’s answer has been to force through a budget that raises taxes and reduces public spending. So much for the economic wonder boy who had a plan to make France both competitive and socially just.
The unfair impact on working families
What does the proposed package of cuts mean for ordinary individuals? Those who work hard to keep French society functioning. I have one example – that of Mr and Mrs Bescont, teachers with three young children. Their job is fundamentally important to the health of a nation. Barnier’s budget, would increase from 1 to 3 the number of days they go without pay should they be off work for a short time. And would see them lose 20% of their pay should they be deemed medically unfit to work for three months. Teachers are not alone in facing such negative changes to their working conditions. These are hardly measures that inspire voters to choose the status quo. In short, it is down to Macron’s failures that voters are drawn to the policies heralded by parties at the opposite ends of the political spectrum.
The choice is not so clear
What are the options now for Macron? Reappoint the conservative Barnier? A provocative step that whilst not something he is incapable of doing would not go down well. He could try to build a coalition of centrist parties with help from the less radical right or left parties? This is possible. Despite the distaste that exists for him within both sides of the more amenable parties, the allure of power may prove irresistible, there may be a minister or two offered up. The option to appoint a technocratic government to oversee state affairs exists, possible but certainly no long-term solution. Would Macron resign himself, thus leading to new elections? Would his ego allow for such an eventuality? He has bullishly rubbished the idea. Whatever the case, he is now a lame duck president.
The end game and another underwhelming legacy
His programme of government has failed to do what he said it would. Many people had little faith in him from the outset, and the hope there was, has evaporated with the news that he has led France into a substantial deficit and a parliament unable to function. Not that this will impact his future financial well-being. In his lavish world tout va bien se passer. It is the majority, whose lives he was supposed to improve, who are left with uncertainty and worry for the future. One major reason moderate voters are not more vocal about removing him is fear. Fear of what comes next. A Le Pen or other far-right candidate victory is not unthinkable anymore. We only need look at America for fear of the future to loom large in our minds. This is Macron’s legacy.
More in world.
Subscribe to our newsletters
Each of our Bylines sends a newsletter every month and we also send out a ‘Best of Bylines, featuring a selection of the best articles from across the network
