France's political crisis: Macron governs despite electoral defeat Article by Berliner Zeitung

German newspaper Berliner Zeitung has published an article shedding light on France’s internal political situation shaped following parliamentary elections. Caliber.Az presents the translation of this piece.

French President Macron lost the election and his government resigned. Yet he continues to govern the country. How is this possible?

French President Emmanuel Macron clearly lost the last election. About seven weeks ago, Marine Le Pen's right-wing Rassemblement Nationale (Rassemblement Nationale Nationale) won twice as many votes as the president's camp in the European elections. And just over three weeks ago, the left-wing New Popular Front (NFP) alliance won the most seats in parliamentary elections. Despite this, Macron continues to govern as if nothing has happened - how is this possible?

Macron has announced that he will not appoint a new government until after the Summer Olympics - he did not specify exactly until after. This is legal, as the French constitution does not set a deadline for the president to appoint a new head of government after parliamentary elections. However, the president is flouting all democratic traditions, according to which the parliamentary group with the most votes always heads the government immediately.

Macron defies democratic traditions

Macron, who these days looks like a radiant winner of the election, never tires of emphasising that the left has only a relative, not an absolute majority and therefore "there is no winner of the election". Quite a bold argument: Macron himself did not have an absolute majority in parliament after the 2022 election, but his camp formed the cabinet. Now the same is expected of the NFP, which, after an initial tug-of-war, presented Lucy Castet as its prime minister.

Macron's active political decisions are even more serious than his defiance of democratic practices. In the midst of the "political pause" that the president himself declared for the duration of the Olympics, France this week changed diplomatic course with far-reaching consequences. In honour of the 25th anniversary of the Moroccan king's accession to the throne, Macron published excerpts from his letter to Mohammed VI, in which he describes the Moroccan autonomy plan for Western Sahara as "the only basis for a just, lasting and agreed political solution". France has supported the autonomy plan since 2007, but has always referred to UN resolutions on Western Sahara's right to self-determination, which are binding under international law. Now, in his letter, Macron makes it clear that he is ready to recognise Morocco's sovereignty over Western Sahara. This is the first time a president has taken a unilateral stance in favour of Morocco in a decades-long conflict, breaking France's historic diplomatic stance. In doing so, he provoked a crisis in relations with Algeria, which supports Western Sahara's quest for independence. Algeria recalled its ambassador from Paris and protested, noting that France "ignores international law and denies the Sahrawi people the right to self-determination."

Explosive reaction to policy shift and legal legitimacy concerns

The recent policy reorientation has ignited not only fierce criticism, particularly from the left, but also significant concerns from constitutional law experts. Thibaut Mouiller, a professor of public law at the University of Paris-Nanterre, told Mediapart that "the president cannot unilaterally make decisions on diplomatic matters." Contrary to popular belief, there are no "sacred zones" in this domain. "Everything depends on an agreement with the government, which signs off on almost all presidential actions," Mouiller explained.

Before Macron decided on Western Sahara last week, his unilateral nomination of Thierry Breton for a second term as EU Commissioner for the Internal Market faced harsh criticism. Additionally, the government is currently filling key civil service positions, raising further questions. Article 20 of the constitution states that "the government determines and conducts the nation's policy." If there is no "full-fledged" government, the outgoing government remains in power temporarily and is only responsible for "current affairs." However, recent actions indicate otherwise.

Macron's resignation as the only solution to the political deadlock?

What happens after the Olympics? Constitutional law expert Alexandre Guig believes "the risk of a deadlock has never been so high in the history of the Fifth Republic." In an interview with Le Monde, he suggested that if nothing changes by September, a vote of no confidence could be issued against the interim government during budget discussions. However, formally, it cannot resign a second time, leading Guig to describe the situation as "absurd."

Many constitutional law experts share this assessment. With a president who first calls for new elections to "clarify" the political situation and then wants to maintain the status quo, normal democratic rules seem to no longer apply. Guig sees a potential solution in Macron's resignation and the calling of new presidential elections.