Relief and pride are the main emotions many French citizens are feeling after the first round of the French presidential election, in which former French economics minister Emmanuel Macron finished first.
For once, the pollsters were right: The two favored candidates — Macron and the National Front’s Marine Le Pen — advanced to the second-round runoff on May 7.
Gone is the sense of anxiety that had attended the weeks, days, and hours before the election, owing to fears that France would wake up to a second-round choice between the far-right Le Pen and the far-left Socialist Party candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon.
Many observers saw France as economically, socially, and politically vulnerable — even more so than the UK, US or Germany — to such a choice. After the UK’s Brexit vote and US President Donald Trump’s victory in the US presidential election, surely this was Le Pen’s window of opportunity.
Some of us, only half-jokingly, have even mused about where we would flee if Le Pen won. Between a UK that is leaving the EU and a US under Trump, there are few good options.
Fortunately, reason and hope prevailed over anger and fear, and French citizens defied those who warned that populism might triumph in the land of the French Revolution. While a Le Pen victory is technically possible, the composition of the French electorate makes it highly unlikely.
Very few of Melenchon’s leftist voters will cross over to the extreme right, and while some of the center-right candidate Francois Fillon’s supporters may now vote for Le Pen, it will not be enough to sway the election in her favor.
In other words, the French exception is alive and well. France’s contrarian electorate has demonstrated to the world — and especially to the Anglo-Saxon world — that one need not betray one’s defining values to defeat populism.
Despite a recent wave of terror attacks, the French have proved their resilience against the politics of fear. Even with Euroskepticism on the rise, the pro-European candidate, Macron, received more votes than any other.
Exceptional circumstances sometimes give rise to exceptional characters. Without the French Revolution, Napoleon Bonaparte would have remained a junior officer in the French Royal Army.
Similarly, albeit less dramatically, if France’s two main political parties had not collapsed, the 39-year-old Macron, who was unknown to most French voters a year ago, would still be just another economic whiz kid.
Macron looks like a French former US president John F. Kennedy and he campaigned in the mode of former US president Barack Obama, but he got where he is because the Socialist Party that produced former French president Francois Mitterrand is dead, and the conservative Les Republicains are in shambles.
The Socialists, for their part, could not come up with a modern political agenda, and the Republicans failed to tap another candidate after Fillon became tainted by a scandal. As a result, France, despite its reputation for melancholy, self-doubt and pessimism, is about to elect its youngest-ever president.
At that point, however, Macron will face a whole new set of challenges, starting with legislative elections that are scheduled for June.
Will Macron end up with a governing majority in the National Assembly, or will the right present a united front and force him into the uniquely French practice of cohabitation?
In France’s semi-presidential system, cohabitation means that the executive branch can become paralyzed if the president and the prime minister represent different political factions.
However, Macron wants to prove that he can implement the majority-coalition model followed in parliamentary systems, with an “alliance of the willing,” comprising different but compatible political sensitivities, pursuing a common goal.
To my mind, France is ripe for a coalition government that can transcend increasingly anachronistic left-right political lines. The real political divide in France, as in so much of the West, is now between those who defend global openness and those who favor a return to nationalist isolation.
Macron will have to acknowledge the cultural roots of traditional left-right divisions, while also addressing the deep-seated, revolutionary anger that now exists in France.
Despite Macron’s strong showing in the first round, some 40% of the French electorate voted for the Euroskeptic candidates Le Pen and Melenchon.
Restoring these voters’ confidence in existing institutions, and reintegrating them into the political mainstream, will not be easy.
Defeated parties will be tempted to take to the streets and block attempts at reform. Having failed at the ballot box, they may — in traditional French revolutionary fashion — resort to “the barricades.”
Macron has demonstrated his immense qualities as a candidate. After May 7, he will have to prove that, despite his youth and lack of experience, he can become a great president. Winning power is one thing; but it is another matter to exercise power effectively, while avoiding the authoritarian tendencies that can emerge under extraordinary circumstances.
That is the task facing Macron. Driven by a sense of destiny, he must resist the temptations of Bonapartism. In the meantime, the democratic world should see Macron for what he is: a beacon of hope in a sea of doubt and despair.
Dominique Moisi is a senior counselor at the Institut Montaigne in Paris.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS