France is failing. The State is paralyzed, mired in an institutional crisis which will not resolve soon. Political blockage which announces an economic pitch, because the absence of major reforms will rightly worry the creditors of a cicada nation incapable of balancing its accounts. It was inevitable. On this point, at least, there is consensus. Even if opinions differ as to the identity of the person responsible.
Allies of the Barnier government will blame the extremes. LFI on the one hand, which has nothing left but chaos to hope to gain power, the RN on the other, which sees censorship as a means of diverting attention from its legal setbacks. And these two opposition parties – the NFP being only the false nose of the first – will have an easy time accusing the government of having refused to exercise large coalitions. Others will see it as the failure of dissolution. Macron’s fault!
And they are all probably partly right. Major crises are always multifactorial. To break the democratic mechanism, you have to work together. They succeeded. Congratulations. As for the citizens who will pay the bill, they are no less guilty. Refusing the reforms that are necessary everywhere else and choosing the worst representatives, they played the part of the crisis brilliantly. Real teamwork.
READ ALSO: “If France refuses to commit to serious reforms…”: the shocking scenario of an Irish economist
Michel Barnier, captain of a ship without a course
However, nothing was written in advance. The worst could have been avoided – and could still be – if only one of the actors in this drama still had an ounce of this quality that everyone has forgotten: courage. Strange to appeal to this virtue which has fallen into disuse while everyone points to the mechanics of the Fifth Republic or the vices of the democratic system. And yet, it is courage that we are talking about. Or rather its absence.
Citizens could have had the strength of soul to accept the necessary “sacrifices” after decades of indebtedness that they had chosen for never having sanctioned spending leaders and always voting for the best bidder. The RN could have assumed the burden of its normalization to the end, thus placing the country above the party. On the left, the PS could have saved its principles and accepted a political shortage instead of swallowing snakes for a few folding seats. As for the government, knowing that it was on borrowed time, it could have chosen to reform forcefully rather than step aside to survive.
Through lack of character, all have failed. The PS became the LFI registration office; the extreme right has confirmed its inability to govern; citizens demonstrated their irresponsibility, preferring to leave the decision to others in order to better criticize them. The Prime Minister got lost. From compromise to compromise, he will have been the captain of a ship without a course, sculling to the rhythm of the threats of the oppositions. The result was no reform, no vision, and an increase in public spending in a budget that was supposed to make savings.
READ ALSO: “For him, I am a Nazi”: Marine Le Pen – Emmanuel Macron, our revelations on their exchanges
This lack of audacity cost him his place. As it will cost that of the next tenant of Matignon or the Elysée. Courage having deserted the people and the opposition, it is up to the leader to have enough for them. Because it is the paradox of the French that they only feel sovereign in the shadow of great men. The institutional crisis is proof of this: no one wants to take the reins but everyone hopes that they will be held by someone reckless enough to take charge of leading them while being hated.
France is not Switzerland
In this democracy, which makes State and Nation synonymous, courage prevails over calculations. We dream of Coriolanus who nourishes the hopes of his fellow citizens by his refusal to submit to their wishes: “I prefer to serve them as I please rather than order them as they do,” he told his mother at the time of the Consulate. offered to him. That's how it is. We admire the sacrifice of a Marshal Ney more than the low masses of a Talleyrand or a Fouché. Reason why a “normal president” cannot win against a thirty-year-old with his ardor as his only party. This is undoubtedly what the Jupiterian president forgot when he dissolved the Assembly. We forgive defeat but not abdication; anger, not whim. Question of size.
READ ALSO: Johan Norberg: “Seen from Sweden, France’s position on Mercosur is very confusing”
Basically, the French have never blamed their elected officials for their weaknesses and baseness. Discrepancies in language and strategic failures count for little compared to witticisms and brilliant moves. We can deplore this since this atavism has undoubtedly contributed to the current situation. Public finances would have been better managed by less charismatic leaders but more aware of practical realities; the reforms would have already taken place. France would have been Switzerland. No doubt. But we should also be happy about it. Because accepting this state of affairs means proposing a way out of the crisis.
The French are just waiting for panache
If the French are ready to hear everything and accept everything from the leader who is not afraid to dare everything, they will refuse the slightest effort requested by a timid leader. Hence a path is emerging. Getting out of the current slump means stopping wandering around. Outside: The president should stop apologizing. His genuflections in Algeria, his fear of humiliating Putin and his silence in the face of the imprisonment of Boualem Sansal affect his popularity much more than public debt and economic tensions. Inside: the next Prime Minister will have every interest in choosing a course and sticking to it, in daring to say “no!” to the opposition parties, and to link its destiny to that of France through a referendum to tell citizens: “Look at how a French minister runs! Vote!”
The French expect nothing else. From Napoleon to Emmanuel Macron, they only wanted one thing: panache. And if political professionals find themselves deprived of it, a figure will emerge ready to avenge them against a State which disappoints them. A revolutionary or a reactionary. Armed with a sickle and a hammer or a chainsaw. At that point, there really won't be any choice.
*Pierre Bentata is a lecturer in economics at the Faculty of Law and Political Science of Aix-Marseille.
.
- -
