“We should have changed the electoral law to introduce proportional representation before the dissolution”

A long-time advocate of the introduction of proportional representation in legislative elections, François Bayrou believes that the current political crisis proves him right, by highlighting the limits of the current voting system, a two-round majority uninominal system. Recalling that this measure was one of the conditions of his alliance with Emmanuel Macron in 2017, this close friend of the head of state proposes to have this change in electoral law adopted by means of a referendum.

More than seven weeks after the early legislative elections, France still does not have a new prime minister. In your opinion, is the current deadlock induced by our voting system?

In large part, yes. This electoral law forces people who have nothing in common, whose political and philosophical orientations are opposed, to come together artificially to add up the votes. On the other hand, the majority vote forces conflict. It is more profitable electorally to designate an enemy and make him the adversary to be brought down. Simplistic confrontation and antagonism are more profitable than a constructive approach. The “bastards” on one side and the “pure” on the other and any agreement is forbidden. Planned blockage.

How could proportional representation offer a solution when the current political fragmentation is causing deadlock?

The proportional electoral law is fair, and what’s more, it creates a new political landscape. Everyone presents themselves under their own colours; it’s a more authentic approach that forces you to explore your own ideas. As soon as you cross the threshold of, say, 5%, you’re assured of a representative parliamentary group. But everyone knows full well that they won’t get a majority on their own. So you have to look at your competitors not just as adversaries, but as potential partners. You know even before the result that you’ll have to compromise. That changes everything. I would add that today’s situation is quite funny. For decades, the proponents of the majority vote have explained learnedly that it was the only way to obtain majorities. And the result is before our eyes: an Assembly that is more fragmented than it has ever been. Their thesis has become untenable.

The subject is absent from the various pacts that have been proposed, notably by your allies in the outgoing majority. How do you explain this when the subject could be unifying, if we are to believe what you say?

The voting system shapes minds, not for a single election, but for a long time. Even in an Assembly that has become so diverse and therefore forced to compromise, majority reflexes, clannishness, caricature and hatred of its competitors still exist. But I see every day that this idea of ​​proportional representation is now on everyone’s minds. It is the only credible prospect for normalizing pluralism. It forces all political forces to recognize the legitimacy, including that of their adversaries. It is now inevitable, and fortunately, that this idea is making headway.

You have 58.62% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.