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
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past