how exactly will they vive le France?

consequences for the French system

Americans who paid attention, admittedly a miniscule percentage of us, probably found the two round election process of the Fifth Republic downright odd. Why doesn’t France simply have a ‘first past the post’, single round election the way we do? Even without the traditional American assumption that everything we do it better than anyone else, the idea of two complete national elections within a seven day period seems convoluted.

The French focus more directly on the policies of the various political groups, highlighting not merely the individual personalities involved. It also provided opportunity for those to move past their own preferences to see what implications resulted from the actual election of alternate parties.

With deep wounds remaining over political trauma of the mid-twentieth century, France runs two ‘first past the post’ (whatever candidate wins the largest number of votes within the electoral district) elections rather than using proportional representation to populate its Parliament. The candidates of the two parties receiving the most votes in the initial round automatically go forward into the second round. Any other parties receive 12.5% of the number of people registered to vote also go into the mandatory second round. Macron’s pro-business party, a loose coalition of leftwing parties in a ‘dam’ against Fascism, and Marine LePen’s National Rally thus were the bulk of candidates from which voters chose their Parliamentary representation yesterday.

In an America where we obsess about individuals rather than understanding the specifics they advocate, this is a refreshing idea. Few Americans ever read the pittance of documents campaigns produce, not even the party platforms. Former President Trump campaigns on vague, sweeping proclamations, often puzzling experts about how he would effectuate them. The closest thing for Republicans now is the ultra conservative Heritage Foundation, an inside the Beltway think tank, suggesting its Mandate for Leadership, The Conservative Promise—Project 2025, Presidential Transition Project. The extensive proposal advocates moving the United States back to a “family-centered” place by destroying the New Deal and the “administrative state” which interferes with family life. The document also advocates tax cuts while proposes to raise revenue through sales and consumption taxes.

Similarly, few Americans have or will read any documents associated with Democratic voices. President Biden has a track record he can cite but conversations regarding these programs is nothing like the depth of serious debate on various policy options in European countries. American think tanks on the other side of the spectrum from Heritage issue lots of reports that I strongly doubt few reading this column today can discuss in detail. American voters just don’t focus on detail, assuming personality somehow substitutes for policy specifics.

Europeans retain greater affiliation with their political parties rather than individuals so the parties provide a policy roadmap once they enter Parliament. It’s not a guarantee those policies will become law but it is a a form of accountability lacking in the United States.

Yet, the day after the results came in the second time, the motivation for the overarching political system becomes clearer. By mandating a two part registration of their preferences, France was able to prevent extremists, in this case a Fascist party, from seizing power.

On conclusion of the 30 June first round voting, Marine LePen’s National Rally, the anti-immigrant hardline party, earned more than a third of the popular vote. This matches the high water mark for LePen or her father over the past forty years. They were far from able to claim outright victory as Keir Starmer’s Labour Party did in Britain four days later, but LePen’s support was unmistakably strong in a country seriously dissatisfied with the current President Emmanuel Macron and his pro-business friends. The President could not even garner the votes for his movement to place second behind the Rally. Instead, the ‘hard left’ took second in the initial popular vote.

Today we know from the second round of voting revealed that the bulk of French voters rejected yet again LePen’s movement as possing a threat to the nation’s stability, harmony, and overall future. While 37.3% of France endorsed anti-Arab and anti-Muslim positions along with registering their frustration with unemployment levels, LePen’s movement only took 142 seats in the Parliament. The rest of the voting public decided France is a fundamentally different place than the one the Rally seeks to recreate (if it ever existed) with their exclusionary policies. The New Popular Front, a leftist amalgamation, took 178 seats in the new Parliament, while pro-Macron voters clawed back to the middle with 150 despite having only 22.3% of the popular vote. The concentration of Rally supporters in the southeast and north east hurt the Party because they are not numerous in the most populous areas of the country. The remaining seats of the 577 in Parliament will go to tiny parties such as the Republicans.

It was a messy outcome but most French are delighted to prevent the Rally from taking control of the legislature. Now is time for confusion about rule, however.

What is much harder is executing the mechanics of governing after their second round voting yesterday. The Rally is third in number of seats but it’s not entirely clear what sort of governing coalition the New Left can cobble together. As democratic voters confront too often regardless where they are, governing is quite different from winning elected office.

In some ways this should be so obvious. Any political movement so odious to two thirds of the country (and the National Front-cum-National Rally has never achieved support from more than a third of des citoyens françois), then the group gathered to defeat the Rally is a broad, fairly wide-ranging bunch. What will it take to retain some coherence beyond anti-Rally? How will this translate into those specifics I mentioned earlier? How does that work for predictable and sustainable foreign policy?

No political system is entirely equitable nor is it completely clean. Every system has actions which create consequences. ‘Pure’ proportional representation is fairer to all voices but it’s a hard system in that smaller parties, when able to get seats in the legislature, may have inordinate power as illustrated in the Israeli Knesset. Even if Netanyahu wanted to make nice with those outside his finely balanced government, his smaller but fiercely ideological smaller partners hold him back.

Systems with particularly scarred histories such as Germany because of its Nazi past limit who can earn seats in a legislature. Like the French mandating the 12.5% registered voters for the second round, Germany has required that parties seated in the Bundestag receive a minimum of 5% of the popular vote; it seeks to prevent a small party from destroying the nation again. Several other countries tweak their voting to prevent too many splinter parties that proportional representation breeds.

Starmer won a big enough majority he won’t have to worry too much about the Tories or LibDems derailing him. Yet this is pretty similar to the position BoJo had for his Tories merely five years ago. Things change in politics pretty often when voters sour on an economy or specific policies.

Proportional representation is fairer than ‘first past the post’ or those system where the single largest number of votes secures the seat but these latter systems, such as our own, are more efficient (so we tell ourselves). Our House members have a two year term but they are constantly gearing up for re-election, often ignoring the main reason they are there: to represent us through the legislative branch. ‘First past the post’ also makes it virtually impossible for more than two parties to win elections, though occasionally someone does strike it out on his own as Senator Angus King of Maine proves. This invites the two dominant parties to become lazy, in my mind, knowing they have an enduring role in the system.

Democracy, in whatever its form or location, manifests the history and tolerances of the people affected. Actions in the past affected the current structures and peculiarities. Each approach has its plusses and its negatives. France will now figure out how to wrestle between both of those realities as it struggles to form a post-election government with a highly unpopular president still in the Élyseé Palace for another three years.

We aren’t the only ones in for a wild ride, are we?

Thank you for reading this column today and any other day. If you find it of value, please feel free to circulate it. I especially welcome rebuttals and thoughts on France, on proportional representation, or on the future of democracy. Thanks especially to those who subscribe to the column.

The hurricane in Texas is as fierce as the weather in the mid-Atlantic. What a year. Be well and be safe. FIN

Theo Bougery-Gonse, “France’s mysterious two round voting system, explained”, euractiv.com, 28 June 2024, retrieved at https://www.euractiv.com/section/elections/news/frances-mysterious-two-round-voting-system-explained/

Catherine Porter, “What the Mood is Like in France after Surprise Election Results”, NewYorkTimes.com, 8 July 2024, retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/08/world/europe/france-election-reaction.html

Martin Sullivan,"Your Guide to Tax Policy in Project 2025”, Forbes 8 July 2024, retrieved at https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxnotes/2024/07/08/your-guide-to-tax-policy-in-project-2025/

Mike Wendling, “Project 2025: a wish list for a Trump presidency, explained”, bbcnews.com 7 July 2024, retrieved at https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c977njnvq2do