Centrist

All of Europe heaved a sigh of relief. Centrist candidate Emmanuel Macron won over far-right candidate Marine Le Pen 58.8 percent to 41.2 percent in last Sunday’s runoff elections.

Macron was favored from the onset. He was, however, laboring under a number of drawbacks.

His approval rating as president was nearly as dismal as Joe Biden’s. It is always tough for a French president to win reelection. There was enough anger animating French voters. The leftwing and Green parties called for a boycott of the runoff vote.

When Macron first ran for the presidency five years ago, he was an unknown entity. He was the youngest French leader since Napoleon Bonaparte. This time around, his flaws and his failings are all there for everyone to examine.

The observation is true: French voters vote with their hearts in the first round and with their heads in the second round.

Had Le Pen won, it would have delivered the same shock to the European system as did the Brexit vote in the UK and the election of Trump in the US. Her ideological position is steeped in nationalist themes. She stands for restricting immigration and reducing EU influence in domestic policymaking.

Le Pen’s association with Russian president Vladimir Putin did her in. The invasion of Ukraine and mounting evidence of Russian atrocities were condemned in France as elsewhere. A win by the rightwing candidate would have softened France’s stance against Russia.

Macron, by contrast, is strongly committed to EU integration. With the retirement of Germany’s Angela Merkel, he is positioned to play a leadership role over the EU.

The leftwing parties are comfortable with Macron’s positions on social issues. He has fairly liberal views on gender and race issues.

But the left is uncomfortable with Macron’s economic policies. An investment banker by training, Macron takes a staunch pro-market approach on economic matters. He has supported pragmatic approaches to sustaining growth and attracting investments.

With Macron’s reelection, there could be less surprises upending the entire continent. It is tough enough that Europe is struggling through a difficult post-pandemic recovery. The common market faces an energy shock arising out of the war in Ukraine. The continent has its hands full dealing with the flow of refugees from the east.

No one really wants to get into a debate with Le Pen over Muslim women wearing their traditional veils or reinventing the terms of France’s membership in the EU. There are more pressing concerns at hand.

France has always been a maverick in the European community of states. The country has not affiliated with NATO and prefers to stake out an independent defense policy. Recently, Macron advocated the organization of a unified combat force in the face of Putin’s threats.

Notwithstanding, Macron is considered the steadier hand compared to UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson. He is better suited to lead the EU through this very challenging time.

The outcome of the runoff contest between Macron and Le Pen does not mean French politics will be less volatile. In the first round, far-left candidate Melechon placed a strong third to Le Pen.

Macron’s newfangled en Marche party gobbled up the traditional centrist parties, including the Socialists and the Gaullists. The far-right and hard left will constantly threaten to polarize French politics in the coming years. The center might not always hold.

In the just-concluded presidential contest, Macron succeeded in portraying the choice as one between democracy and fascism. That narrative may not always be one the French electorate will always accept.

Parliamentary elections are scheduled in France next June. This freewheeling multiparty carnival will give us a reliable barometer of the undercurrents animating French politics.

Freed from the straitjacket of choosing between democracy and fascism, the forthcoming parliamentary elections will be a test of Macron’s ability to form a reliable ruling coalition to get his policies through. Given parallel trends, there is no guarantee the centrists will control the National Assembly.

No debate

The Comelec needed this like a hole in the head: a messy controversy that led to the rescheduling and eventually the cancellation of the “town hall” debate among the presidential and vice-presidential candidates.

The firm contracted to organize the debates failed to pay the hotel that served as venue for the previous debates. With their schedules tightly packed late in the campaign period, not all of the candidates could commit to appear at a rescheduled debate. In the face of that, the Comelec shifted the format to some sort of “panel interview” of individual candidates – presumably at times convenient for them.

We do not know how this will work out.

The initial debates were not particularly productive events for anyone. They failed to clearly differentiate between the policy positions of the candidates. Nor were they able to elevate public appreciation of their choices.

With so many candidates gathered together, speaking time is seriously restricted. Compounding this, the candidates were themselves not very clear on their policy positions. The audience ended up investing time to listening to very general statements.

With all the media channels for the candidates to reach their target audiences, the Comelec debates appear redundant. It has added no value to the quality of political discourse animating this campaign period.

The quality of political discussion this campaign period probably descended to its lowest. We are now down to endorsements made by matinee idols and other celebrities who have nothing to contribute to responsible appreciation of the policy issues.