A faithful reader of this blog has posted a number of
comments about my last post ("A poisoned chalice" - June 13). I am most
grateful for comments as they always give me food for thought, as well as a
good peg on which to hang a few more points about the first round of the parliamentary
elections, particularly the rate of abstention and the fact that most of
Macron’s babes are political novices.
On the rate of abstention first. The first thing that
struck me last Sunday was the fact that nobody I met, including officials at
the polling station, seemed very electrified by the process. There was
definitely no sense of anticipation that you sometimes feel in the air on
election day, as there was, for instance, in the first round of the
presidential election in 2007, when there were high hopes that Nicolas Sarkozy would be the man to put an end to 15 years of drift. This year, the big surprise
was Emmanuel Macron’s score in the first round of the presidential election on
April 23. Since then, mainly thanks to his highly skilled handling of unfolding
events, there has almost been a sense of inevitability about them: getting the
best of Marine le Pen in the TV debate, winning the presidency, the
inauguration, first appearances on the international stage, the appointment of
the government, the rise of his own political party and the disarray and even disintegration of the traditional ones. However difficult it was to predict all of these things at
the outset, observing French politics over the last two months has
almost been like watching a famous violinist playing a fiendishly difficult
concerto or a pole-vaulter effortlessly clearing a two meter hurdle – they make
it look so easy! Little wonder that “The Economist “, on its cover this
week, described Macron as “Europe’s saviour” and pictured him walking on water
whereas Theresa May had sunk below the surface with only her shoes
emerging!
One explanation for the high rate of abstention last
Sunday is therefore that a lot of election-weary voters considered the parliamentary
elections as more or less a formality. Many of those who bothered to turn out simply
wanted to give Macron a boost and many of those who didn’t felt that there was little
point in voting for an opposition destined to have little power in parliament
anyway. Between the two of them, Marine Le Pen and Jean-Luc Mélenchon, who have
expressed the most hostility to Macron and his policies, lost about four
million votes between the presidential poll and last Sunday.
This overall impression is reinforced by my experience
in my own constituency. I went to the public meetings of two candidates, one
from LREM, and one from the Les
Républicains, the party that, in its various guises, has held this seat in
every parliamentary election since 1958. It selected a new but serious
candidate, a personal friend and political ally of the Prime Minister and Alain Juppé’s
former chief of staff. He was endorsed by all six local mayors. In his meeting, attended
mainly by local worthies, he was clear and honest about the strategic
difficulties facing his party and spoke of the need to co-ordinate
parliamentary business with that of the local authorities. Whatever one’s political
views, he came across as well qualified and well placed to be a good constituency
MP. Last Sunday he polled not quite 23%, an unprecedented low watermark in this
constituency for a candidate of his political persuasion
In stark contrast to this low-key public meeting, that
of his LREM rival was more grandly organised, well attended and featured some
nationally known figures. The talk was about Macron’s victory, his vision, and
the need for a new departure. Points were made about climate change, renewable
energies and Europe, none of which sounded more ground-breaking than an endorsement
of motherhood and apple pie. They were dutifully applauded. Hardly a word was
spoken about constituency matters, apart from a few bland sentences, like the
need for more car sharing to avoid traffic jams at rush hours. Last Sunday, the
candidate polled just over 48%, the best first-round result for the centre-left
since 1958. He will no doubt be elected to represent the constituency this
coming Sunday.
In France, it must be noted though that the role of an
MP is not exactly the same as that of a constituency MP in the U.K. Listen to
any member of the House of Commons, as I did to Jeremy Corbyn this week in his
first speech to the House after the U.K. elections, and it is clear that he
considers himself, together with his fellow MPs, as first and foremost the representative
of his constituents. In France by contrast, MPs are called députés and are considered as “representatives
of the assembled nation” (“représentants de la nation
assemblée”) as stated in the States General convened by Louis XVI in 1789,
to which much of France’s modern political history and phraseology can be
traced. Even if they are elected from a constituency, representing its
interests is seen as a secondary matter to participating in the framing of legislation
and monitoring the government of the day.
In this sense,
the voters of my constituency, as well as those of countless others throughout the
country, are being entirely consistent by sending to the Assemblée Nationale a député who
represents a fresh political outlook more than narrower political interests.
As Emmanuel Macron has radically changed the political outlook for the next
five years, it seems natural that, under the French system, voters should give
him the parliamentary majority to underpin it. In any event, the opposition
parties will take some time to reorganise themselves. Many of their supporters feel
confused and disoriented - a further reason for the high rate of abstention last Sunday and probably
an even higher one this coming Sunday.
The fact that the newly elected députés will represent the whole nation does not however give them
instant and automatic knowledge of how parliament works. Which is why I have
not been the only one to describe them as political novices. This is not meant to
be derogatory. There is a lot to be said for new blood and fresh thinking in
the somewhat stale Assemblée Nationale,
but the government is probably right to consider that the controversial
nitty-gritty of labour market reform is not an issue on which they should cut
their parliamentary teeth. Some of the new MPs will learn fast, others will
find the going tough. And inevitably, with a large number of seats under a
single banner, they won’t all have the same views and factions are likely to
form. After five years, some may end up joining whatever emerges from the centre-right
realignment; others may go the other way and rejoin a rejuvenated Parti Socialiste. Whatever happens, the
next five years will be fascinating to observe.
At the end of the period, if Macron’s ideas are implemented
as announced, many will come to the end of their short parliamentary career as
the number of MPs will be cut by about half. In addition, those who do stand
for election to the next Assemblée
will do so on the basis of a new voting system that will include a dose of
proportional representation.
On Tuesday of last week, the French soccer team beat
their English rivals in a friendly match in Paris. The French team scored the
winning goal in the second half, even after one of their players had been sent
off. It was an impressive and stylish performance. President Macron, watching
the match with Prime Minister May, must have relished the victory, as proof of
what Team France can achieve when it puts its mind to it. Might he have pondered
a more symbolic significance as well? Whether he did or not, the French soccer
team, for all its panache last Tuesday, is a long way from qualifying for the
World Cup in 2018. Macron is only at the beginning of his campaign to reform
France. Let the hard times roll!
No comments:
Post a Comment