Political scientists Vincent Martigny, Bruno Cautrès and Olivier Rozenberg answered questions from readers of Monde.fr on the first round of the legislative elections and on the issues of the second: vote carryover, possibility of dissolution of the Assembly by Macron, future of the Nupes beyond the election…
Can we still speak of democracy when the country’s second political force risks ending up with a microgroup in the Assembly?
Vincent Martigny: Indeed, this situation poses a real democratic problem. It is for this reason that more and more voices, both in the majority – as in the MoDem – and in the opposition, on the left or in the RN, are calling for the establishment of a proportional system, so that the political sensitivities are better represented in Parliament.
As such, Emmanuel Macron made commitments during the presidential campaign, and in particular that of changing the voting system in Parliament during his mandate, while remaining vague on the contours of such a reform. It remains to be seen whether he will keep his word, knowing that he had already made a close promise in 2017 (at the time, he was talking about introducing a dose of proportional representation and reducing the number of parliamentarians) and that his reform proposal bogged down, given the Senate’s opposition to constitutional reforms…
Does the Nupes coalition have a future after June 19? How could it extend beyond the parliamentary intergroup contained in the agreement?
Olivier Rozenberg : Political life has many so-called intermediate elections between two presidential or legislative elections. Most of these elections are proportional: European, municipal, regional and even three-quarters of senatorial elections. The political logic of such elections does not encourage unity because it is possible to obtain elected representatives without reaching an agreement and because each party may want to defend its “brand” in the political landscape.
This is to tell you that many factors will weigh to unravel the coalition. Added to this is an essential fact: the internal (dis)balances in Nupes are mainly the result of the balance of power in the first round of the 2022 presidential election. This is why La France insoumise dominates. As this election goes on, the legitimacy of deciding will be less and less obvious: socialists, ecologists and communists will tend to consider their weakness vis-à-vis LFI as an accident of history and to try their luck at the next events… including national ones.
Finally, in the event of a relative majority and parliamentary conflicts, Macron will only have to dissolve the Assembly after one year, right?
Vincent Martigny: He could indeed be tempted to do so, if he considers that the relative majority prevents him from governing. But we must remember that Michel Rocard was able to govern for five years between 1988 and 1993 with a minority government! Dissolution remains a constitutional possibility, but always with the risk that this tool will turn against the President of the Republic, as was the case in 1997 for Jacques Chirac, who had seen the new elections won by the plural left and the installation of Lionel Jospin in Matignon… It was the last case of dissolution of the National Assembly, and we can imagine that it will make Emmanuel Macron think.
Didn’t Mélenchon make a mistake by deciding not to run again? How will he be able to keep an influence on his deputies by being outside Parliament?
Bruno Cautrès: It is true that this choice surprised, especially since Jean-Luc Mélenchon wants a VIe Parliamentary republic. It is not certain, however, that this choice weakens the word of Jean-Luc Mélenchon in the legislature which is about to begin: either he succeeds in his bet of being “Elected Prime Minister”, or he will anyway be the key player in the new alliance of the left, since it is on his initiative that the Nupes was born. Political leaders have, in the past, been able to exist fully while not being elected to the National Assembly (but it is true that they were often elected locally, and in particular mayors).
Is victory for Nupes still possible, or very unlikely?
Olivier Rozenberg : Both ! It is always possible because it performed well in the first round and because, in any case, in elective democracy, uncertainty is part of the game. It is unlikely if we are to believe the projections: according to the more optimistic, there would still be a hundred deputies in the Nupes to reach an absolute majority, which is not nothing. The difference between the electoral potential of Nupes and Ensemble! depends on two distinct factors. On the one hand, vote transfers: right-wing or moderate voters will be able to vote more easily Together! than Nupes. On the other hand, the geographical concentration of voters is stronger for Together! : there may be more constituencies where it comes first without its national average positioning it well above Nupes.
Why this generational divide vis-à-vis politics? How to bring 18-34 year olds back to the polls?
Bruno Cautrès: This generational divide is expressed in many democracies. We are witnessing a real transformation in the relationship of the younger generations to voting: it is still considered a very important mode of public expression, but no longer the only one. The democratic demands of the younger generations are strong: the vote is more than the vote, it also expresses demands, expectations. These demands and expectations are less perceived than before as being able to find their outlet in voting and elections.
This is the whole question of democracy between two elections. Voting and elections settle the question of who comes to power; but, especially in the younger generations, it no longer settles the question of how power is exercised, how expectations are met, how the citizen is considered between two elections.
In the event of a relative majority for the Ensemble! group, would the scenario of a motion of censure voted by both the deputies Nupes, RN and LR, who all define themselves as opposition forces, be credible, in the short term or in the medium term?
Olivier Rozenberg : It all depends on the exact size of the different formations. To vote for the motion of censure, 289 deputies must come to the Palais-Bourbon and actually choose to overthrow the government. In the event that the Nupes would be the second force behind Together!, a fall of the Macronist government would be more possible if the elected Nupes are numerous and need the support of a few right-wing or far-right deputies only. So much for the arithmetic.
Politically, any deputy is reluctant to censure because it can lead to a dissolution, and therefore to risk returning to the polls. Consequently, they are only ready to do so if: 1) the case is important (pension reform, for example) and… 2) the polls promise them to win the legislative elections that would follow a hypothetical dissolution.
How are the votes carried over to the second round estimated? And in particular, for RN voters, whose candidate was eliminated in the first round and who have the choice between a candidate Together! or a Nupes candidate?
Bruno Cautrès: In many constituencies, RN voters find themselves in the second round facing a tough choice: help the Nupes bring down a Macronist candidate, but then lend him a hand? Or help the Macronist candidate and block the way for the leftist candidate, especially if he or she is from La France insoumise?
It would not be impossible for these voters to decide by abstaining, considering that the Nupes-Together confrontation! is not their problem and that the increase in the number of RN deputies at the national level is already enough to make them happy.
Finally, what were the consequences of the presence of dissident candidates on the elections? Did they deprive their original side of the second round without succeeding either, did they succeed or were they swept away?
Vincent Martigny: The question of dissidence is very interesting because it tells us about the evolution of political forces. First, these dissidences have always existed and have even been reinforced with the decline of political parties that are unified and centralized in their decisions. Remember, for example, that even if they were not strictly speaking dissidents, many socialists joined La République en Marche in 2017, abandoning their original political family.
Regarding the left, in the current configuration, around sixty socialist deputies were present in the first round on Sunday, plus around twenty dissident Nupes – for the latter, mainly candidates who were rejected in their application for nomination and who decided to remain. At the end of the second round, they are only six dissident socialists in France – fifteen if we add the candidates overseas and for the French abroad – to appear in the second round. The centrifugal dynamics of the Nupes functioned at full capacity, also sweeping away the candidacies of the various left or of the Federation of the Republican Left, which challenged the hegemony of the Nupes on the left for ideological reasons.
For the extreme right, it is interesting to note that the label Reconquest! served as a home for RN dissidents and sometimes even the reverse. But, each time, without real success for Reconquest!, the strike force of the RN being stronger. For Together!, the answer to the question is more difficult, because the situation remains more vague, the notion of dissidence often being limited to a battle of investiture without ideological disagreement.
We talk a lot about Nupes and Ensemble!, but isn’t it the RN that is progressing the most in these elections?
Vincent Martigny: It all depends on how you look at things. The RN achieves its best score in the history of the Ve Republic, but, at the same time, one out of two Marine Le Pen voters in the first round of the presidential election did not go to the polls on Sunday.
This is due to the fact that the more popular RN voters are more likely to abstain than those of Together! or Nupes, and that the RN, having integrated its defeat, did not campaign. The fact remains that this party will certainly have a group for the first time since 1986, and that its visibility will be increased. Afterwards, if the majority ballot were to be reformed for proportional representation, the RN would then have good days ahead of it in Parliament.