At a time when the President of the Republic is trying, in search of a new lease of life, to invoke the figure of a de Gaulle that he is not, that he will probably never be, the moment is without doubt came to bring to light the unbearable claim with which Emmanuel Macron has exercised power for three years, despite the catastrophic results which are his.
He himself characterized his coming to power as a “break-in”. And this break-in, sitting on sand, appears more and more every day in the eyes of the French, in a form of antithesis to Gaullism.
Gaullism is the solidity, constancy and honor of France in the storm of 1940, a real war that had to be waged, with free Frenchmen, who enabled our country in 1945 to s sit at the table of the winners.
75 years later, the international recognition of France, a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, holder of the nuclear deterrent, remains indexed on the glorious Appeal of June 18, 1940.
Gaullism is a will that places national, military, political, diplomatic and economic independence at the heart of national destiny. In a word, Gaullism is sovereignty in all its dimensions.
It is not insulting Mr. Macron to say that of all the presidents of the Republic who have succeeded him, he is undoubtedly one of the least well placed to invoke de Gaulle.
Because Gaullism is also a constitution, a political regime and a system, those of the Fifth Republic which allow government stability backed by the solidity of a parliamentary majority.
Everything was thought of, in 1958 then in 1962, by General de Gaulle himself and by his Prime Minister Michel Debré obviously, to give weight to the executive power in the face of a National Assembly whose divisions, under the Fourth Republic, leads to government instability and the disintegration of the state.
We also know that this stability owes a lot to the electoral systems for the election of deputies, the first-past-the-post dual-majority system that builds clear majorities capable of supporting the government.
Only President François Mitterrand, in order to weaken the Republican right, was against this unspoken rule that the method of majority voting is consubstantial with our political regime.
At the start of his presidential term, Emmanuel Macron also proposed the return of proportional representation to accompany the constitutional reform he called for. He seems to have given up and it’s good for the country.
In the history of the Fifth Republic, our presidents were able, because their parliamentary majority united with them, to maintain the unity of the parliamentary group supposed to support them. François Hollande experienced the throes of the “rebellious” who paralyzed his action, without ultimately a split preventing him from governing until the end in a form of stability.
Emmanuel Macron is on the verge of achieving what none of his predecessors had achieved: exploding, from within, his majority. There was little or nothing left of his presidential majority. His parliamentary majority, that of his party, that which he created and which he directs from the Elysée Palace, has just passed out after a phase of fraying which has lasted for many months. With now less than 289 deputies, La République en Marche (LRM) is in retirement. The save-who-threatens.
It would be anecdotal if France did not experience a terrible health crisis which heralds an economic and social crisis.
More than ever, France needs stability. It does not need a President of the Republic and a Prime Minister whose relationships are marked by the poison of mistrust. It does not need a return to the Fourth Republic with its share of small compromises between parliamentary groups which think more of their interests than those of the country. The National Assembly does not need a 9th parliamentary group which will help accelerate the stifling of national representation. This spectacle of a National Assembly made up of 9 groups is unworthy. We have repeatedly proposed that a parliamentary group can only be formed if it includes at least 10% of the deputies sitting in the National Assembly.
If we want to avoid that the Assembly becomes a shadowy theater over which hangs a President of the Republic who bet on confusion and on divisions to give the illusion of power, it is essential that the President of the National Assembly take stock of the deleterious situation in which the multiplication of the number of parliamentary groups leads to our Assembly. A revision of the regulations is more necessary than ever today.
While it is legitimate for a President of the Republic to honor the memory of General de Gaulle, the commemoration on Sunday May 17 in Montcornet (Aisne) and probably June 18 in London appear to be staged. When his political majority breaks up, he would be inspired to spare this comedy to the French. Who imagines today that he can lay the foundations for the union of the French when he is helpless in the face of a “quarteron” of deputies who flouts his authority?