The recent French election was quite the roller coaster. President Emmanuel Macron, a self-styled centrist, chose to dissolve parliament and call a snap election in response to the surprisingly strong showing by the right in the European Parliament elections in June. In this way, Macron hoped to shore up his position against the right in preparation for the presidential election in 2027. Macron may now regret his decision.
There were two rounds to France’s recent parliamentary elections. In the first round, the rightist party, National Rally, or RN, shocked many by taking the lead. In the second round, Macron’s centrist coalition, Ensemble, and a coalition of leftist parties cooperated to pool their votes by withdrawing all but one candidate between them in each local election. The strategy worked, and the leftist coalition, the New Popular Front, or NFP, then pulled ahead of the RN in the final voting.
But the numbers tell the real tale, which is less a tale of a come-from-behind victory than a tale of enduring turmoil for France. The NFP/left holds 182 seats, Ensemble/center holds 163 seats, and RN/right holds 143 seats, with several other small parties holding the rest. With that almost tripartite division, who can govern? Who can even form a government? According to French law, there cannot be another parliamentary election for at least another year, so prolonged deadlock seems the most likely result.
The biggest loser was the center: The left and the right poles both gained in strength, the hallmark of increasing polarization in French society. Macron’s centrists have already ruled out working with the largest parties on the right and the left, which they deem as too extreme for their tastes, and the rejection has been mutual.
Arguably, given the gloomy outlook, it may be that the RN — the rightist party — benefits the most from this election. Given that the RN will probably remain in opposition to whatever shaky coalition Macron can cobble together between Ensemble and NFP, it will not be held responsible for what the government does — or fails to do — over the next three years, and will be in a better strategic position come 2027.
This is not hard to understand. Already the largest party in the NFP, France Unbowed has unveiled its policy agenda to great skepticism. It is proposing a 90% wealth tax on income over 400,000 euros, a lowering of the retirement age to 60 and an aggressive government spending increase, among other things. In response, Moody’s has warned that France’s credit rating will suffer if these policies are implemented.
Besides disputes over economic policy, the issues that galvanized more than 61% of the electorate to turn out for the French election include immigration, crime and antisemitism — and all three issues are integrally linked. France’s surge in crime has been largely driven by immigrants from Muslim-majority countries, as one independent scholar relates. Foreigners make up less than 8% of France’s population, but represent 24% of those in prison, according to 2020 government figures. In 2023, 77% of those arrested for rape in Paris were foreigners. National 2023 figures show foreigners were 40% of those arrested for vehicle thefts, and 38% of those arrested for burglaries.
In addition to deep discord over immigration, these issues also touch deep historical French tendencies, such as antisemitism. Ironically, given its origins, the RN has become a supporter of Israel, while the NFP has supported “from the river to the sea” rhetoric. I was stunned to learn that Serge Klarsfeld, one of the last surviving Nazi hunters of the postwar period, expressed openly that he would be voting for RN, and that he felt Jews in France had no alternative. One French rabbi urged young Jews in France to emigrate to Israel because “it seems France has no future for Jews.” These trends are very troubling.
What are the takeaways here for Americans? There are many, from the strategic to the philosophical. One strategic takeaway is that immigration is not a small issue — immigration is a powder keg. The right will gain, and eventually win, if immigration is not controlled. Not just the surprising performance of the RN in France but also rightist victories in other European nations, such as the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy and Hungary and others, make this very plain.
A larger philosophical takeaway is that democracy is no panacea for what ails us politically. Lately I’ve seen the conflation of “threats to democracy” with victories by the right in fair and open elections. The idea being promulgated is, of course, that the right is inherently anti-democratic, and therefore when the right is elected, democracy is threatened. No, the election of rightist parties is simply one possible outcome under democracy, and must be taken in stride by all those who love democracy.
The more pressing threat is from a different source. Democracy cannot stop polarization; in fact, there’s a good case to be made that democracy inevitably and actively produces polarization. But polarization means democracy winds up deadlocked and impotent — paving the way for frustration, political violence and even the possible overthrow of democracy in favor of a system that can actually get things done. This thesis was laid out brilliantly by Amy Chua almost 20 years ago in her award-winning book “World on Fire.” Democracy cannot help but undermine itself, and that is its true philosophical tragedy.
France is just a few short steps ahead of us here in the States. The U.S. Congress is deadlocked, though the courts and the executive branch are not. However, with recent decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court severely curtailing the powers of the executive branch absent congressional mandate — which mandate is impossible to obtain, given congressional deadlock — French-level turmoil is surely coming our way.
Winston Churchill once quipped, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried.” We smile at the quip, but at its heart is a sad truth.
Valerie M. Hudson is a university distinguished professor at the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University and a Deseret News contributor. Her views are her own.