Emmanuel Macron, president of France with all the glory that commands, has had a wretchedly brief honeymoon.
Elected in May with about 67 percent of the vote, he promised to respect and address the “anger, the anxiety and the doubts” that many had expressed, and pledged to “recreate the links between Europe and its peoples.”
Since that heady night, he has been plunged from the heights of hope into the apparently eternal hard facts of French political life. His stellar approval ratings descended rapidly from 64 percent in June to an anemic 37 percent earlier this week.
Illustration: Yusha
Polls are volatile things, but it is likely this reflects tougher verities than seasonal fluctuation on the part of the French electorate.
Macron’s capture of two-thirds of the electorate was made when the voters were forced to choose, in the second round of voting, between Macron, a centrist offering something to left and right, and a hard rightist, Marine Le Pen of the National Front.
Le Pen’s performance in a decisive TV debate with him was described as “better suited to an after-dinner boozy get-together” than the pose of a future president.
Macron’s majority was not all for him, but — apart from Le Pen’s own supporters, a substantial 34 percent of voters — mostly against her.
In the first debate, the majority of the 10 candidates present called for some form of protection from globalization and expressed a degree of aversion to the EU. Their attitudes to Macron’s frank embrace of the EU, globalization and a revived Franco-German leadership of a more integrated EU varied from skepticism to disgust.
Macron can convince the milder skeptics — but only by producing results. These will take pain to achieve and he is the man who must inflict it.
The French military has already felt this pain. Macron, underlining that he was now “the boss,” announced an 850 million euro (US$980 million) cut in the armed forces’ budget, prompting the immediate resignation last month of armed forces chief General Pierre de Villiers, who told Macron there was “no fat left. You are cutting into muscle.”
De Villiers said he resigned because he “was no longer able to guarantee the robust defense force” he believed was necessary to protect France.
The general has gone and the defense cuts stay — for now at least. Other cuts did not. A reduction of 5 euros a month to a housing benefit announced last month was quickly scrapped; the cut would have had the biggest effect on the poorest in society.
Promised tax cuts have also been postponed — a move justified by French Prime Minister Edouard Philippe, who had described the nation as sitting on “a debt volcano.”
Macron’s new party, “En Marche,” dominates the parliament, but has few experienced politicians. The leftist Jean-Luc Melenchon, a powerful orator, has had the best of parliamentary debates, but his party — France Insoumise (France Unbowed) — has a mere 17 seats in the National Assembly.
During the debate on the housing cut, he displayed a bag of discount groceries costing 5 euros — white bread, pasta, canned vegetables — a dramatic show of what poverty means in the world’s foodiest country.
France, which saw inequalities in income and wealth grow relatively rapidly in the past few years, is still a country where equality is regarded as an important social good, even if more honored in the breach than the observance. Macron has cut hard against this culture; when the political season begins again in the next few weeks, his plans to liberalize the labor market will meet the force of the unions.
The most powerful, the Confederation Generale du Travail, has already declared war. The others are more cautious, but, backed by Melenchon and the rest of the left and capitalizing on the fall in presidential popularity, they may pull off a September of protests that would see leftists, far rightists and unions all — separately or together — testing the president’s reforms on the streets.
Macron and the world which welcomed him now grasp the enormity of the task he has set himself and the national interests he must serve even as he proclaims the need for a more integrated Europe. At the center of the EU debate remains a stubborn contradiction.
The push to integrate in order to better control the euro currency and align national economic policies will meet the desire of most citizens to hold to account their own politicians, those they have elected and understand. It is that power of national accountability that Europeans— along with millions of Americans — increasingly want to keep.
Nationalism is much more than the ideology of the far right. As political scientist Andrew Michta has written, it is a set of ideological assumptions, an “idea of sovereignty that grows from the sense of belonging to a nation.”
As such, it is much more than the defeat of far right-parties. It is the still potent force with which the EU must wrestle, and which presently has the better of its ideal of “ever closer union.”
The larger question, which US President Donald Trump’s election and presidency puts on the global agenda, is whether or not the swing away from global ideals and practices to a defensive nationalism can remain broadly liberal and civic. Or does it contain a powerful charge of resentment and anger, directed largely at elites, judged to have betrayed their first duty — that of looking after their own people first?
Italy is Europe’s present weather vane. A London Times reporter last week wrote that violence and hostility to migrants has grown “as Italians adjust to the likelihood that many tens of thousands of the newcomers will be staying permanently.
The nation’s tolerance is waning, its politics being reshaped.” Its neighbors, including France and Austria, have closed their borders; Italy has become a pressure cooker, with liberals and leftists defensive, the far right and populists on the electoral rampage.
Trump seems unlikely to lead the revolution he promised. Columnist Ezra Klein last week wrote that the president has been surrounded by generals who neutralize his tweets, take care of the details he does not care to know and leave him to posture, “happy — even eager — to be both operationally and ideologically marginalized.”
However, his presidency has shown that there is a vast, politically active constituency of the disaffected and marginalized.
Macron, the liberal centrist, must contend with similar forces. The survival of liberal internationalism, in the US and Europe, will define politics in the coming years.
John Lloyd cofounded the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism at the University of Oxford. The opinions expressed here are his own.
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
By now, most of Taiwan has heard Taipei Mayor Chiang Wan-an’s (蔣萬安) threats to initiate a vote of no confidence against the Cabinet. His rationale is that the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP)-led government’s investigation into alleged signature forgery in the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) recall campaign constitutes “political persecution.” I sincerely hope he goes through with it. The opposition currently holds a majority in the Legislative Yuan, so the initiation of a no-confidence motion and its passage should be entirely within reach. If Chiang truly believes that the government is overreaching, abusing its power and targeting political opponents — then