French Political Dynamics and Their Implications for Europe's Future

éLECTIONS EUROPéENNES - Le grand débat sur Europe 1 et CNEWS du 30 mai 2024 (émission intégrale) (youtube.com)

I almost forgot what an electoral debate looks like, so I had to take a peek over the fence at our "amis francais". At first, it was difficult to follow the tumult of nuances accentuated by the specific verbal flow of such confrontation. Fortunately, I have a good command of the French language. After a debate of over two and a half hours, there were enough ideas to put together an analysis of the electoral debate "Quelle France dans quelle Europe?". Especially since, on the brink of elections in Romania, more local debates have taken place about the future of European politics, somewhat overshadowing certain themes of common importance. I will begin by structuring the analysis based on the four main topics discussed: purchasing power, Europe and agriculture, Europe in the face of war, and Europe in the face of immigration. I tried to pay close attention to all the key points and positions of each candidate, as well as the dynamics of the discussions and any major controversies.

The debate started with the theme of purchasing power, considered one of the main concerns of French citizens. The case of Fabienne, a 57-year-old woman living on minimum wage and facing major financial difficulties, was presented. But just like Fabienne, we can find countless examples even in Romania.

The positions of the candidates began with Manon Aubry (La France insoumise), who proposed price controls on basic products, supported exiting the European energy market, proposed raising the minimum wage, and accused other parties of not supporting these measures in the European Parliament. In contrast, Jordan Bardella (Rassemblement National) criticized Emmanuel Macron's government for increasing energy bills, proposed exiting the energy pricing mechanism, and wanted to reduce taxes to increase net wages.

Fran?ois-Xavier Bellamy (Les Républicains) emphasized the need to reduce public spending and taxes and criticized the inefficient management of public services by the state. On the other hand, Marion Maréchal (Reconquête!) criticized the "tax hell" and the social benefits system and supported reducing taxes on wages to improve purchasing power. Léon Deffontaines (PCF) criticized unfair competition and job outsourcing and proposed exiting the European energy market and investing in the nuclear sector. Valérie Hayer (the presidential majority) highlighted the measures taken by the EU to support the economy during the pandemic and the war in Ukraine and supported energy market reforms to reduce bills.

Regarding the theme of Europe and Agriculture, the context of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and the challenges faced by farmers were mentioned. Manon Aubry proposed establishing minimum guaranteed prices for farmers and criticized large agribusiness companies for increasing profit margins. Jordan Bardella criticized environmental regulations imposed on farmers and supported a "French agricultural exception" to protect local farmers. Fran?ois-Xavier Bellamy criticized the European Commission's "agricultural decline" strategy and argued that French agriculture respects the strictest environmental and social standards.

Marion Maréchal criticized free trade agreements and overlapping regulations and supported opening the collective supply market for farmers. Léon Deffontaines criticized the unfair competition imposed by free trade agreements and proposed minimum guaranteed prices and greater public intervention in price setting. Valérie Hayer defended the CAP and emphasized the importance of European support for farmers, while also criticizing opponents' shifting positions on the CAP.

The themes of Europe in the Face of War and Europe in the Face of Immigration were less addressed. The dynamics of the debate were marked by heated exchanges and controversies, especially between Manon Aubry and Jordan Bardella, and between Jordan Bardella and Valérie Hayer. Criticisms targeted Macron's government's economic management, energy and agricultural policies, and the contradictory positions of some candidates. This confrontation highlighted the major differences in vision and proposals among the candidates on essential topics for the future of France and Europe.

From the debate, I gathered some ideas to attempt, in a sort of analytical exercise, to identify candidates with common visions and the significance of these visions in the context of the European elections. Regarding purchasing power, Manon Aubry (La France insoumise) and Léon Deffontaines (PCF) both proposed price control measures (price freezes on basic products) and supported exiting the European energy market, criticizing large companies for increasing profit margins. Jordan Bardella (Rassemblement National) and Fran?ois-Xavier Bellamy (Les Républicains) criticized Macron's government for economic management and increasing energy bills, both supporting tax and public spending cuts to increase net wages.

In terms of Europe and Agriculture, Manon Aubry and Léon Deffontaines proposed minimum guaranteed prices for farmers and criticized EU-imposed norms that negatively affect farmers. Both are against free trade agreements that disadvantage local farmers. Jordan Bardella and Fran?ois-Xavier Bellamy criticized environmental norms imposed on farmers and supported the idea of a "French agricultural exception" to protect local farmers and reduce imports of agricultural products that do not meet the same standards as in France.

To extract the significance of these common visions, we can look at Manon Aubry and Léon Deffontaines, whose convergence suggests an ideological alliance on the political left, focused on social and economic protection of French citizens and farmers. Both candidates promote strong state intervention measures and harshly criticize the EU's neoliberal policies. In the context of the European elections, this could mean a call for a more social and less liberal Europe, prioritizing citizen welfare and protecting vulnerable sectors.

On the other hand, Jordan Bardella and Fran?ois-Xavier Bellamy's common positions indicate an alliance on the political right, emphasizing tax cuts, deregulation, and national sovereignty. Both candidates criticize the current EU management and propose measures to protect national interests against external influences and supranational regulations. In the European elections, these visions translate into a call for a Europe with fewer regulations, where member states have more autonomy in managing their economic and agricultural policies.

Analyzing these implications in the context of the European elections, the common visions on the left (Aubry and Deffontaines) suggest a united front against austerity and neoliberal EU policies. This could attract voters dissatisfied with current economic policies and seeking a fairer and more social Europe. The common right-wing visions (Bardella and Bellamy) signal an alliance for national sovereignty and deregulation, potentially attracting voters skeptical of EU influence and desiring more national control over economic and agricultural policies.

Considering these broader implications, let's also look at an analysis from the perspective of political science and the European context, based on the electoral debate and the candidates' expressed visions, to outline possible predictions for Europe's future. In the current context, Europe faces multiple challenges, such as the energy crisis exacerbated by the war in Ukraine and external energy dependency, the economic crisis marked by high inflation and post-pandemic economic difficulties, social issues from increasing inequalities and pressures on the welfare state, and migration requiring management of immigrant flows and their integration. Additionally, environmental policies concerning the transition to green energy and sustainability have been on the agenda for years.

In the electoral debate, diverse political visions and alliances were clearly outlined, reflecting the candidates' and parties' divergences and convergences. Manon Aubry, representing La France insoumise, and Léon Deffontaines, from PCF, had similar visions regarding social and economic policies. They proposed price control measures to protect citizens' purchasing power and raising the minimum wage. Both supported exiting the European energy market, arguing this would reduce energy bills for citizens. In agriculture, they promoted minimum guaranteed prices for farmers to protect their incomes and criticized free trade agreements that endanger local agriculture.

If these policies gain ground, the European Union could become more protectionist, focusing more on state intervention in the economy and stronger social measures. The proposed reforms could lead to a significant change in energy policy, possibly abandoning the common energy market and emphasizing national energy sovereignty.

On the other hand, Jordan Bardella from Rassemblement National and Fran?ois-Xavier Bellamy from Les Républicains promoted economic and fiscal policies centered on tax cuts to stimulate the economy and increase purchasing power. Both criticized austerity policies, arguing they increase the fiscal burden and regulations on companies and citizens. In agriculture, they advocated for economic patriotism, prioritizing national agricultural products and reducing environmental norms that, in their view, negatively affect local farmers and increase costs.

If these visions prevail, the European Union could have fewer regulations and more autonomy for member states. The focus could be on national sovereignty and reducing the influence of EU institutions on member states' internal policies. Valérie Hayer, representing the presidential majority, emphasized the need to continue energy market reforms and support social protection measures. She highlighted the importance of managing the current economic and energy crises with appropriate policies. In agriculture, Hayer supported the continuation of the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and its adaptation to respond to new challenges. A centrist victory could lead to the continuation of current reform and European integration policies, with a focus on European solidarity and joint management of transnational challenges.

Europe could become increasingly polarized, with left and right parties gaining ground at the expense of centrists. This could lead to greater political fragmentation in the European Parliament, making it harder to form stable coalitions. The rise of sovereignist parties could lead to partial withdrawal from some common EU policies, such as the energy market or agricultural policies. Conversely, pro-European parties might continue to push for deeper integration. The political left could promote more social economic policies, including consumer protection measures and wage increases, while the political right might insist on tax cuts and deregulation to stimulate the economy. Debates on environmental and agricultural policies will continue to be intense, focusing on finding a balance between sustainability and economic competitiveness.

As sovereignist and eurosceptic forces grow in influence, the European Union could become more divided, with significant differences between member states regarding economic, social, and environmental policies. There is a possibility of institutional reforms to address criticisms and improve EU functioning. These could include changes in decision-making processes and greater flexibility for member states. In the context of current crises, security and energy issues will continue to be priorities, with a focus on diversifying energy sources and reducing import dependency.

To better understand the context and implications of current political visions in Europe, we can draw historical parallels and references to political science theory. This allows us to make possible predictions about Europe's future. In the current context, Europe faces multiple challenges, and the various political visions expressed by candidates reflect these challenges and offer varied solutions.

Historical parallels and political theories help us better understand these visions. For example, the Maastricht Treaty of 1992 and Brexit of 2016 represent turning points in the European integration process, demonstrating the tensions between the desire for national independence and the benefits of European integration. Theoretically, federalism supports a political structure where member states cede a significant part of their sovereignty to a central authority, while intergovernmentalism promotes cooperation between sovereign states without ceding control of national sovereignty (many thanks to my teachers!)

In terms of economic interventionism versus neoliberalism, Franklin D. Roosevelt's New Deal during the Great Depression is a classic example of economic interventionism, where the state massively intervened in the economy to stimulate growth and reduce unemployment. In contrast, the Thatcher and Reagan era of the 1980s was marked by the rise of neoliberalism, with deregulation policies, tax cuts, and minimal state intervention in the economy. Theoretically, Keynesianism supports an active state role in regulating the economy, especially during recessions, while neoliberalism promotes free markets and deregulation.

Populism versus elitism is another relevant dimension. The rise of populism in interwar Europe and contemporary populist movements, such as those led by Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, and the Five Star Movement, reflect economic and social discontent and opposition to elites perceived as corrupt or disconnected from ordinary citizens' needs. Populism argues that governance should reflect the general will of the people, while elitism assumes that society should be governed by an educated and competent elite.

Predictions for Europe's future indicate continued political fragmentation and polarization between sovereignist and pro-integration forces, difficulties in making common decisions, and possible institutional reforms. If left-wing forces gain influence, we might see a return to Keynesian policies, with an emphasis on state intervention in the economy and social protection. Conversely, a right-wing victory could mean more neoliberal policies and reduced state intervention. The CAP might be reformed to address criticisms from both sovereignists and those advocating for more sustainable and equitable agriculture.

As a conclusion, Europe's future will largely depend on the balance of power between different political forces and the EU's ability to respond to challenges in a way that meets both member states' and citizens' needs. The choice between national sovereignty and European integration, economic interventionism and neoliberalism, and populism and elitism will define the direction the EU will take in the coming years. In this context, it is important for European leaders to find ways to reconcile these differences and build a common future that reflects the continent's diversity and complexity.