The comfortable re-election of French president Emmanuel Macron against an opponent with whom he shares a mutual dislike almost obscures a certain co-dependence between their political camps.
Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen may loathe each other but they have developed a type of political symbiosis that provides crucial insights into the current predicament in France, Europe, and beyond.
The spectre of a Le Pen victory seems to be establishing a fine tradition in helping incumbents return to the Elysée. Before Macron, 20 years ago, it had helped Jacques Chirac unite 82 percent of the electorate against Marine Le Pen’s father, Jean-Marie Le Pen.
But this time is different. In 2002, it was a one-way street: fear of Le Pen forged Chirac’s triumph. In 2022, it was more of a two-way street: Le Pen helped Macron assemble a clear majority of voters while Macron bolstered Le Pen – allowing the ultra-rightist to score a share of the vote that would have, once, caused progressives to hang our heads in shame. Over the past five years, the Macron-Le Pen co-dependence grew not in spite of the two opponents’ mutual antipathy but, at least partly, because of it.
Chirac’s 2002 re-election was built on a coalition of the right, the centre, and the left against the xenophobic ultra-right. Five years ago, faced once more with the same ultra-right threat, Macron broke the mould by presenting himself as neither-left-nor-right. It worked, only too well. Evidence of the success of Macron’s neither-left-nor-right mantra is that it has infected the thinking of those within the electorate who oppose him most fiercely.
The young, the precariat, and, increasingly, the more insecure segments of the proletariat, refuse to assess presidential candidates in terms of the left-right divide. They see a France ruled by an alien world of money which has not just left them behind but is, in fact, holding them there. In their eyes, Macron embodies that world. For them, the new political divide is between respectable politicians promising to maintain this world and mavericks promising to demolish it.
In the pre-election televised debate between the two candidates, Macron succeeded in presenting himself as the epitome of the efficient, competent administrator who understood the system and could manage it better. But that does not impress voters who want the system blown up, not better managed.
Macron’s approach reminded me of the hardcore Remainers in Britain who failed to foresee the blitz mentality of Brexit-leaning voters: the more they were told, with charts and statistics, that Brexit would cause them to suffer, the more excited they became about the prospect of making collective sacrifices in order to tear down a system that they believed was rigged against them.
Returning to the comparison with the 2002 election, there is a great difference between the cross-spectrum coalition that backed Chirac with Macron’s radical neither-left-nor-right mantra. Twenty years ago, leftist voters supported a right-wing politician to keep Le Pen out. Chirac understood that their vote was borrowed from established political forces like the Socialist Party and the Communist Party, and he governed as if on the basis of an implicit contract with fierce critics of the establishment. In contrast, Macron succeeded in eliminating the parties of the left and the right before invoking the spectre of Le Pen to dominate fully.
Once in the Elysée, and with an absolute majority in the National Assembly, Macron proceeded to pursue his agenda free of the commitments that had anchored Chirac, constrained only by the strictures of Big Finance and an austerian European Union beholden to business interests. Within a few years, he succeeded in making Paris more business-friendly, revitalising the French start-up scene and making a dent in the official unemployment rate.
But the precariat expanded. Many voters saw their prospects diminish as a direct consequence of policies which seemed to them to constitute an outright class war waged against them personally: tax giveaways to the already ultra-rich, deregulation of layoffs, a regressive carbon tax, and a determination to raise the pension age significantly in a country where poor men’s life expectancy is 13 years lower than that of well-off men.
This reality became the foundation of the mutually reinforcing feedback loop between Macron’s and Le Pen’s political oeuvre. While there is no whiff of collusion – they are clearly allergic to each other – the dynamic between them forms a political cul-de-sac that facilitates a new type of capital accumulation that has produced a new ruling class which Macron ultimately serves and whose reign is strengthened when someone like Le Pen is the official opposition.
None of the above should be interpreted as a reluctance to take sides. Five years ago, I called on anyone who would listen to vote for Macron against Le Pen. All I needed was the thought of the utter terror in the hearts and minds of my French friends, especially those with browner skin, at the prospect of Le Pen getting her hands on the police and the interior ministry.
This year, even though DiEM25 (the movement to which I belong) decided to issue the same recommendation to our French members, it proved a harder ask. The Macron-Le Pen feedback effect has narrowed the space that used to separate them on matters of human rights and basic dignity. How can we forget Gérald Darmanin, Macron’s interior minister, who last year denounced Le Pen for being “too soft on immigration”?
Macron-style politicians are failing everywhere to stand up for the liberal rationalism they champion. Hiding behind their neither-left-nor-right narrative, they supported the irrational combination of austerity and bank bailouts that delivered 12 years of stagnation, preventing serious investment in green energy. During the pandemic, they bowed to pointless violations of civil rights. Today, they demonise moderates who warn against escalating the NATO-Russia conflict and who support a deal between the US and Russia that allows a neutral Ukraine to enter the EU but keep it out of NATO.
The moral of Macron’s re-election is that, in class-ridden societies, the left-right division remains essential. When centrist politicians succeed in obscuring it, they get caught in a dynamic feedback loop with the ultra-right that makes them sound shriller and more irrational, while making the ultra-right seem deceptively more palatable. Even when they win, they lose.
Do you want to be informed of DiEM25's actions? Sign up here