FIGAROVOX/TRIBUNE – Nothing required the President of the Republic to dissolve the National Assembly, analyzes historian Maxime Tandonnet, specialist in the history of the Fifth Republic. According to him, this bet is risky since it could plunge the country into a moment of absolute chaos after the early legislative elections.
Maxime Tandonnet is an essayist and historian. He notably published André Tardieu. The misunderstood (Perrin, 2019), recently reissued in the collection “ Tempus » (pocket).
In the history of the Fifth Republic, three dissolutions occurred during a presidential mandate (that is to say outside the case of a President of the Republic just elected to give himself a majority). Two were successful for the head of state. The first was that of General de Gaulle in 1962, following a motion of censure voted against the first Pompidou government: it resulted in the obtaining of a large majority. The other, decided on May 30, 1968, put an end to revolutionary unrest and led to a Gaullist tidal wave. The third, on the other hand, was catastrophic for the President of the Republic, Jacques Chirac, at the beginning of 1997: intended to consolidate a majority that was nevertheless solid and to relaunch his seven-year term on new bases after a turbulent winter, it had led, against all expectations, a victory for the left opposition. In the first two cases, those of General de Gaulle, the dissolution was justified by a political crisis, then an insurrectional movement. In the third, that of Jacques Chirac, nothing imposed it and it presented itself as a political coup, which the voters sanctioned.
The dissolution decided on June 9, 2024 by President Macron is a real thunderbolt… Nothing required it immediately: no motion of censure was voted on beforehand, as in 1962 and the country did not not found in a state of insurrection and total blockage as in May 1968. Certainly the functioning of the National Assembly is chaotic but with circumstantial majorities, the support sometimes from the left, sometimes from the right including the National Rally , several reforms emblematic of Macronism have been voted on, for example on the “climate transition”, immigration or pensions, and even the inclusion of abortion in the Constitution. The system of government is in no way blocked.
Read also“Wind of anti-macronism, anti-immigration wave: what Europeans teach us”, by Alexis Brézet
Furthermore, the vote of June 9, certainly disastrous for the majority, concerns the European Parliament alone. It in itself has absolutely no impact on the functioning of national political institutions. In contemporary history, other majorities have suffered scathing disavowals in intermediate elections (European or territorial) without ever triggering the presidential thunderbolt of article 12. President Macron has therefore created a precedent: that of a dissolution in response, the same day, to a lost intermediate election.
This dissolution is particularly surprising due to the date on which it occurs: the day before the Olympic and Paralympic Games in Paris, which are a flagship event in national political life, particularly for questions of international prestige and security. The government authorities who have been responsible for its preparation for months or years are no longer sure of being able to continue their task to completion.
This dissolution seems to open a fatal door into the unknown. What happens if the RN wins an absolute majority? Is the president ready to govern with a prime minister from this party?
Maxime Tandonnet
So why such a dramatic turn of events? It is in reality quite consistent with the policy of a head of state who himself announced in 2017, after his election, that his victory reflected “the French taste for romance”. The meaning of this decision is that of a choice of personal image. The sensational must erase the humiliation represented by the debacle of the Renaissance list and the triumph of the National Rally despite the personal investment of the president and his prime minister. The staging with Gaullian connotations aims to show the President of the Republic as a man of decision and prince of daring in the storm, and thus cover the failure of the Europeans.
This dissolution is the sign of self-confidence pushed to its peak. The head of state undoubtedly intends to lead a republican front against the “extreme right”. He probably intends to form a coalition with the right-wing LR and the socialist party to reinvent a macronism of “national unity against the extremes”. He also thinks that the French, caught by the throat by this legislative election in such a rushed timetable, will not take the risk of the so-called “extremist” adventure on the eve of the Paris Olympics.
Read alsoGuillaume Tabard: “The dissolution, the poker move of an Emmanuel Macron apprentice sorcerer”
The bet faces three uncertainties: first, has the president fully understood the unpopularity of his policy and the level of degradation of his image in public opinion? Secondly, will the LR right like the socialists take the (suicidal) risk of an electoral agreement around such an unpopular team? Thirdly, the entire French historical tradition, from Mac Mahon in 1877 to Jacques Chirac in 1997, emphasizes that voters sanction dissolutions when they are, in their eyes, political coups. Before the polls, how will the French interpret this operation?
In the meantime, this dissolution seems to open a fatal door into the unknown. What happens if the RN wins an absolute majority? Is the president ready to govern with a prime minister from this party? And what government if the National Assembly emerges from these elections even more fragmented than before? Is France preparing to plunge, at the worst moment, into absolute political chaos?
