During a recent visit to a Michelin factory, on the outskirts of Paris, the minister for industrial affairs Marc Ferracci was heckled and shouted at. The factory is one of many to be shut down as part of a wave of industrial closures across France. Added to this are expected strikes by public sector workers and the railways. Right now, it is too early to say whether the republic will experience a protracted social crisis as it has in the past, but the situation is far from promising.
In spite of these severe economic woes, the French political class is consumed by strategising and tactical manoeuvres, all tied to the possible fallout from the collapse of the Barnier government. It looks increasingly likely that Barnier will push through his budget using the famous Article 49:3 of the Constitution, which allows legislation to be passed without a parliamentary vote. The Left has said it would respond by seeking to bring down the government. The far-Right, whose votes will be decisive, has said that as things stand they are minded to vote with the Left. In which case, the Barnier government will collapse some time between 15 and 21 December.
In the last few days, the possibility of an even earlier move to bring Barnier down has been suggested — perhaps as early as next week. French public opinion is divided on the matter, though it seems surprisingly favourable to the prospect of a collapse. A recent poll found that just over half of those surveyed supported dissolution, despite the turbulence of the legislative elections over the summer. This number falls a little when the prospect of a financial crisis is evoked, but even then a hefty 46% still support a move against Barnier.
When the Barnier government was first put together, at the end of the summer, after an extended period of feverish uncertainty, it seemed as if it might signal some kind of return for the country’s centre-right Républicains. They were given some of the most powerful roles — the minister of interior, for instance — whilst Barnier himself came from this wing of the political spectrum. The Left cried foul, as they considered themselves the winners of the legislative elections, and yet the centre-right was back in power.
However, it was always dangerous to rest the revival of a party and a political tradition on an edifice as fragile as the Barnier government. Less than six months later, we see that the fundamental dynamic of political fragmentation — where no political force is able to create a majority of any kind — is reasserting itself. And the Barnier government is a distillation of that fragmentation rather than a way of overcoming it.
This fragmentation has not come out of the blue. It was already evident in the early 2000s, but it was masked by the rallying effect that came from surprisingly good scores by the French far-Right. The fact that neither the Left nor the Right could command the same sort of vote share as in the past was hidden by the power of the cordon sanitaire: majorities were built on a fear of letting the far-Right into power.
This resistance to the far-Right has steadily fallen away, leaving the centre-right exposed and unable to secure its place in the presidential run-off. At the same time, the Left has split between the centre and the far-Left. Macronism, for a time, functioned as a broad centrist coalition, able to govern and thus seeming to reverse this trend of fragmentation. However, lacking any ideological consistency, this was only a temporary solution.
Today, with a shrunken Macronist party, the only thing keeping the Barnier government in place are the fears of his opponents about what exactly might happen should he be brought down. The far-Left, dominated by Jean Luc Mélenchon’s France Insoumise, is determined to censure the government: it has never accepted its legitimacy in the first place. Though Mélenchon clearly relishes the prospect of a chaotic end to Barnier’s tenure as prime minister, there are others on the Left who are more cautious about what the voters will make of this parliamentary coup de grâce.
The same consideration lies on the far-Right. Marine Le Pen is unquestionably the one holding the cards at the moment. The Left can only bring Barnier down if they also have the support of the far-Right. Le Pen has up until now judged the government on a pragmatic basis, keeping her powder dry. The Rassemblement National has not managed to get over its own sense of betrayal in the legislative elections, when enough of the other parties united against it to keep it out of power. Moreover, it has not won any obvious battles in the debates on amendments to the budget. This week, Marine Le Pen declared that as things stand with the budget, she would also support a dissolution of the government. Even so, she is cautious about triggering an unnecessary crisis. She is also wary of being seen to play political games typical of the Parisian elite, games that appear unintelligible to her voting base.
There is no principled defence or critique of the Barnier government today in France. Current discussions and decisions are overwhelmingly tactical. Those eying up the presidency in 2027 — such as former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal, and former leader of Les Républicains Laurent Wauquiez — are asking themselves whether a dissolved government will be good or bad for their chances. Both are watching events closely.
But despite this uncertainty, a full-blown crisis of the eurozone still seems far-fetched, given the broadly robust nature of the French economy. A sense of governability at the national level, however, is a key criterion for eurozone stability. And in France, the budget and the country’s future economic trajectory have become subordinated to political calculation. The government currently survives: but its existence is an expression of the indecision of others. And even though France has a government today, it remains no more governable than in the dramatic weeks after the dissolution of the legislature.
Disclaimer
Some of the posts we share are controversial and we do not necessarily agree with them in the whole extend. Sometimes we agree with the content or part of it but we do not agree with the narration or language. Nevertheless we find them somehow interesting, valuable and/or informative or we share them, because we strongly believe in freedom of speech, free press and journalism. We strongly encourage you to have a critical approach to all the content, do your own research and analysis to build your own opinion.
We would be glad to have your feedback.
Source: UnHerd Read the original article here: https://unherd.com/