Today, France represents the weakness of the European Union, but without Macron and his geopolitical influence, Europe risks remaining powerless in the face of autocratic threats.
By Andrea BONANNI
Political and economic data confirm that France has become the “great disease” of a Europe that is itself not in good shape. But the crisis that occurred within twelve hours of the appointment of another prime minister by President Macron shows that we are facing a disease that is psychological before it is physical. “You have the power to overthrow this government, but you do not have the power to ignore reality,” the previous prime minister, François Bayrou, had prophetically warned, addressing the deputies who were overthrowing it. This political blindness seems to have affected not only Parliament, but also the country’s top leaders, as Macron has given the task to another loyalist, Sébastien Lecornu, who presented a government very similar to the one that was overthrown a short while ago.
It is a strange fate for Emmanuel Macron, first elected president in 2017, at a time when traditional parties were completely disintegrating, and who now risks being overthrown by the same collective anxiety that brought him to the Elysee Palace.
He was supposed to be the resistance of sound reason against the rise of the populist and anti-EU far right led by Le Pen. Now he is surrounded not only by the “Le Penists”, who are now the main party, but also by a populist and also anti-European left, which has grown during his presidency. The most paradoxical part is that during these eight years at the helm of France, Macron has undoubtedly been the most charismatic leader in Europe. It is his phone that rings, when all the world’s greatest leaders call him when, less and less often, they want to understand the state of the European Union. Whether it is Putin or Trump, who do not like him, or the British Starmer, who says he is his friend, Macron is the reference point of the Old Continent.
While his popularity in France was fading, his international figure was only growing, also because he was the only one of the leaders of the 27 countries to strongly and persistently express a political idea and values for Europe.
But for the French, this no longer matters. And this is an indication that the disease in France has transformed the very collective consciousness of a people that seems to have lost its identity. Since de Gaulle, French presidents have always turned their international stature into political gain at home. ‘Gaulism’ itself, which lasted decades after the general’s death, was a movement linked to an idea and a project of France on the world stage. Mitterrand and Giscard d’Estaing also benefited in domestic politics from their positive international image. Today, the situation is no longer like that. In fact, the opposite is happening.
The European beliefs, the ethical and political tension that made Macron great in Europe, now turn against him in the eyes of the majority of the French people. His international prestige becomes a minus in domestic eyes. His ability to see a common future beyond the borders of France is seen as a betrayal.
The French president certainly bears responsibility for the political crisis that now threatens to topple him from power. This includes the one that has talked a lot about Europe but not done enough to put it into practice. But Macron’s crisis is primarily the crisis of a country where the more irrational and angry part has grown too much compared to the “brain,” which has weakened and can no longer restrain the self-destructive instincts of the “gut.” In a democracy, this divide between power and public opinion is usually resolved through elections. But for Macron, who cannot run again, the problem is not so simple. This is because the country is divided into three parts: a far right seeking a relative majority, a democratic but increasingly divided center, and a far left that no longer wants to support the establishment.
In this situation, which is more or less “schizophrenic”, it is almost impossible to form a majority government, even if it were entrusted to the opposition, creating a “diarchy” at the head of the state. But, in a country that no longer has a common vision for itself and its destiny, even early presidential elections would be a great risk, as they would further increase the division between positions that do not agree. Before being a political or economic crisis, France’s crisis is a crisis of democracy. There is a real risk that neither of them will be able to overcome it.(La Repubblica)
