French parliamentary election results. Macron's party leads in parliamentary elections in France
After counting 100% of the votes, the party of the new French President Emmanuel Macron "Forward!" became the leader in the first round of the French elections. On Sunday, June 11, 28.21% of voters voted for her, and together with their allies from the Democratic Movement they scored 32.32%. Thus, after the second round, Macron's party could take 400-440 of the 577 seats in the National Assembly, the Kantar Public-Onepoint institute reported.
German Chancellor Angela Merkel has already congratulated Macron on his party's "great success" in the first round of elections, German government spokesman Steffen Seibert said. The Chancellor emphasized that this demonstrates the French desire for reform.
Both traditional parties were defeated. The conservative Republicans party received 15.77%, and the French Socialist Party, which has a majority in the current lower house of parliament, only 7.44% of the vote. Marine Le Pen's right-wing populist National Front received 13.2% and, apparently, will not be able to create its own faction, which requires at least 15 deputies.
Voter turnout was the lowest in 60 years, at about 50 percent.
The French electoral system involves voting in 577 single-member constituencies in two rounds. To secure a seat in parliament in the first round of elections, a candidate in his constituency needs to win more than half the votes. If none of them succeeds, then a second round of voting will take place on June 18. The candidate who receives the majority of votes will enter the lower house of parliament - the National Assembly.
See also:
-
Europe makes a choice
The year 2017 is marked by elections in Europe. The composition of the parliament will be renewed in six EU member countries, and new presidents are being elected in three countries. Voting is also taking place in two candidate countries for joining the European Union. DW sums up the results of the past elections and talks about the main intrigues of the upcoming ones.
The European Choice, or the year of the EU votes
March elections in the Netherlands
The right-wing liberal People's Party for Freedom and Democracy, led by Prime Minister Mark Rutte, won the parliamentary elections in the Netherlands on March 15: its result was 21.3 percent of the vote. At the same time, the main opponent of Rutte's party - the right-wing populist Freedom Party of Geert Wilders (photo) - was supported by only 13.1 percent of voters.
The European Choice, or the year of the EU votes
Coalition without Wilders
Mark Rutte regarded the election results as a victory over populism. “After Brexit and the US elections, the Netherlands said “stop” to the false essence of populists,” said the Dutch prime minister. Negotiations on forming a coalition continue in the country. It is expected that, in addition to the election winner, it will include three more parties. Rutte ruled out an alliance with Wilders.
The European Choice, or the year of the EU votes
Next early
On March 26, early parliamentary elections were held in Bulgaria - for the third time in the last 5 years. Their winner was the pro-European party GERB of ex-Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, gaining 32 percent. 27 percent of voters voted for the pro-Russian Bulgarian Socialist Party. Socialist leader Cornelia Ninova admitted defeat and congratulated her rivals.
The European Choice, or the year of the EU votes
From prime minister to president
The winner of the presidential elections in Serbia, held on April 2, was the current Prime Minister of the country, Aleksandar Vucic. He managed to get 55 percent of the votes. After the announcement of the voting results, thousands of citizens took to the streets of Belgrade. Demonstrators fear that Vucic's victory threatens the country with the establishment of a dictatorship. Since 2012, Serbia has been a candidate for EU membership.
The European Choice, or the year of the EU votes
President of the Republic
The elections for the new French President were held in two rounds - April 23 and May 7. As sociologists predicted, the leader of the independent movement “Forward!” entered the second round of voting. Emmanuel Macron and the head of the right-wing populist National Front party Marine Le Pen. In May, Macron won a landslide victory over his rival.
The European Choice, or the year of the EU votes
Early elections in the UK
On June 8, early parliamentary elections were held in Great Britain. The initiative to hold them in mid-April was made by Prime Minister Theresa May. According to her, the opposition is hindering the process of the United Kingdom's exit from the EU. May hoped to win even more seats for Conservatives in parliament and strengthen London's position in Brexit negotiations. But in the end the Conservatives lost their majority.
The European Choice, or the year of the EU votes
Macron's coalition wins in France
On June 18, the second round of parliamentary elections took place in France. President Emmanuel Macron's coalition won an unconditional victory. The Republic on the March movement, with its allies from the centrist Democratic Movement party, won 331 seats in the National Assembly.
The European Choice, or the year of the EU votes
Election fight in Albanian
In Albania (an EU candidate country), parliamentary elections are scheduled for June 25. The election struggle here is accompanied by thousands of protests under the flags of the opposition Democratic Party, which accuses the ruling socialists of corruption and intention to manipulate the outcome of the upcoming vote. At the same time, both main political forces in the country advocate a pro-European course.
The European Choice, or the year of the EU votes
Rival Merkel
In Germany, representatives of parties included in the current government coalition will compete for the post of chancellor on September 24. According to polls, the Social Democrats, after nominating Martin Schulz (pictured with Merkel) as chancellor candidate, are ranked lower than the party of the current head of the German government, Angela Merkel. 53 percent would now vote for her, while Schultz's rating is just above 29 percent.
The European Choice, or the year of the EU votes
Not an alternative?
The right-wing populist Alternative for Germany party, which was said at the beginning of the year that it could form the third largest faction in the Bundestag, is rapidly losing ground. Its rating, which reached 15 percent last year, fell to 9 percent by mid-2017.
From 14 to 20 June 2017, I visited France as part of an expert mission of the European Platform for Democratic Elections. We talked with representatives of a number of structures involved in organizing and monitoring elections, representatives of political parties and the scientific community. On the voting day of the second round of elections (June 18), we visited polling stations. This article is based on impressions from the trip, analysis of literature and electoral statistics.
1. Historical excursion
The electoral system in force for parliamentary elections in France is unique. Its foundations were formed during the period of the Third Republic (1875 – 1940). For most of this period, a system was in force that required an absolute majority to win in the first round. At the same time, the same candidates could participate in the second round as in the first round (and there were also cases when new candidates participated in the second round), and a relative majority was sufficient to win the second round. In practice, there was often a grouping of political forces before the second round, when candidates, who realized from the results of the first round that they had no chance of winning, withdrew their candidacies in favor of more promising candidates with political positions close to them.
According to the famous French political scientist M. Duverger, the two-round system leads to a multi-party system - in contrast to the relative majority system, which stimulates two-partyism. However, with a two-round system, two blocs (conditionally right and left) are often formed, which create some semblance of a two-party system. And during the period of the Third Republic, the political situation could be described as a pendulum: “left, right, left again.”
During the Fourth Republic (1946 - 1958), various versions of the proportional and mixed system were in effect. During the transition to the Fifth Republic in 1958, the two-round majoritarian system was restored in a slightly different form. To win in the first round, you must receive an absolute majority of votes cast and at least 25% of registered voters. To qualify for the second round, initially it was necessary to receive at least 5% of the number of registered voters, since 1966 - at least 10%, since 1976 - at least 12.5%. In this form, this system has been in effect in parliamentary elections in France for more than half a century (the only exception was the 1986 elections, which were held under a proportional system).
At the same time, during the transition to the Fifth Republic, the role of the country's president (who has been elected through direct elections since 1965) was significantly strengthened - the parliamentary republic was replaced by a presidential-parliamentary one. However, the principle of forming a government by a parliamentary majority was retained. As a result, on several occasions there has been a “cohabitation” between a left-wing president and a right-wing government, or vice versa.
The National Assembly (lower house of the French parliament) is elected for a 5-year term. Until 2002, the President was elected for a term of 7 years; since 2002, he has also been elected for a term of 5 years. Thus, the presidential and parliamentary elections were not synchronized for a long time (which, in particular, is why “cohabitation” was possible). Moreover, twice (in 1981 and 1988) parliamentary elections were held shortly after the presidential elections due to the dissolution of parliament by President F. Mitterrand. In 1997, President J. Chirac dissolved the National Assembly a year before the expiration of its term of office and called early elections. As a result, in 2002, parliamentary elections were again held shortly after the presidential elections, and this practice was consolidated: this continued in 2007, 2012 and 2017.
French Senate
For most of the period of the Fifth Republic, the main political forces were: on the right flank - the Gaullists and their successors (the parties “Union for the New Republic”, “Union of Democrats for the Republic”, “Union for the Republic”, “Union for a Popular Movement”, "Republicans"), and on the left flank - the socialists. Representatives of these particular parties reached the second round of presidential elections in 1965, 1988, 1995, 2007 and 2012. The exceptions were 1969, when the Gaullist J. Pompidou and acting President - Speaker of the Senate, representative of the right forces A. Poer, 1974 and 1981, when the leader of the center-right party "Union for French Democracy" V. Giscard d'Estaing competed with the socialist F. Mitterrand (in 1974 Giscard d'Estaing won, in 1981 - Mitterrand), and 2002, when in the second round the opponent of the Gaullist J. Chirac became the far-right J.-M. Le Pen.
Nevertheless, initially (in 1962 - 1978) the parliamentary elections were dominated by the right, the main role among which was played by the Gaullists - they received from 22.6% to 38.1% of the votes in the first round and from 148 to 294 seats in the results of two rounds. On the left flank in 1962 - 1973, the communists received the most votes in the first round (from 20.0% to 22.5%), but the socialists, due to the peculiarities of the majoritarian system of the absolute majority, always received more mandates: they received from 12.5% to 22.6% of the vote in the first round and from 57 to 116 seats. However, the center-right “Independent Republicans”, which were initially allies of the Gaullists, gradually grew stronger: already in 1968 they surpassed the socialists in the number of mandates (having received only 5.5% of the votes in the first round). When the leader of this party, V. Giscard d'Estaing, became president in 1974, it was transformed into the Union for French Democracy, and in the 1978 parliamentary elections it took third place in the number of votes in the first round (21.5%) and again second place in the number of mandates (137).
After winning the presidential election of F. Mitterrand, the Socialists for the first time were in the lead in the parliamentary elections of 1981, receiving 36.0% of the votes in the first round and 266 mandates. The Gaullists were second (20.9% of the vote, 85 mandates), the Union for French Democracy took third place (19.2% of the vote, 62 mandates).
In 1986, elections were held for the only time during the Fifth Republic using a proportional system (each department was a multi-member constituency). In many departments, the Gaullists and the Union for French Democracy formed a single list. These two parties together received 40.9% of the vote and 276 seats. The Socialists gained 31.0% of the votes and received 206 mandates, in total the leftists received 42.5% of the votes and 248 mandates. As a result, the right was able to form a government, and the “cohabitation” of the right-wing government and the left-wing president began.
Until 1997, on the right flank, the Gaullists and the Union for French Democracy were approximately equal. The Gaullists in 1988 - 1997 received in the first round from 15.7% to 20.4% of the votes and from 126 to 242 mandates, the Union for French Democracy - from 14.2% to 19.1% of the votes and from 109 to 207 mandates, socialists - from 17.6% to 34.8% and from 53 to 260 mandates.
In 2002–2012, the Union for French Democracy and its successor, the Democratic Movement, no longer played a serious role, receiving in the first round from 1.8 to 7.6% (from 2 to 29 mandates). During this period, the leadership of the Gaullists on the right flank was undeniable - from 27.1 to 39.5% and from 185 to 357 mandates. The Socialists maintained leadership on the left flank - from 24.1 to 29.4% and from 141 to 280 seats.
Thus, a two-block system gradually took shape. According to a number of political scientists, the formation of such a system was a consequence not only of the absolute majority electoral system, but also of the state structure - a presidential-parliamentary system with direct elections of the head of state.
Before the big debate of candidates for the presidency of France
The 2017 presidential election seemingly destroyed this two-bloc system. For the first time, representatives of neither the Gaullists nor the Socialists entered the second round. The leader of the Gaullists ("Republicans") F. Fillon took third place with 20.0%, and the leader of the Socialists B. Hamon took only fifth place with 6.4%. He was significantly ahead of the ultra-left candidate (Unconquered France party) J.L., who took fourth place. Mélenchon (19.6%). In the first round, the leaders were the centrist (social liberal, “Forward, Republic!” party) E. Macron (24.0%) and the leader of the far-right National Front, M. Le Pen (21.3%). Macron won in the second round (66.1%).
Separately, the situation with voter activity should be noted. In presidential elections it was almost always higher than in parliamentary elections. In the first round of presidential elections, the lowest turnout was in 2002 (71.6%), the highest in 1965 (84.8%); in the second round, the lowest turnout was in 1969 (68.9%) and the highest in 1974 (87.3%). In general, despite all the fluctuations, turnout in presidential elections remains at a fairly high level.
Voter turnout in parliamentary elections has also been high for a long time. From 1958 to 1997, it varied in the first round from 65.7% (1988) to 83.3% (1978), and in the second round - from 67.5% (1993) to 84.9% (1978). year). After parliamentary elections began to be held immediately after the presidential ones, turnout in parliamentary elections has been steadily declining: in 2002 it was 64.4% in the first round and 60.3% in the second; in 2007 – 60.4 and 60.0%, respectively, in 2012 – 57.2 and 55.4%. The 2017 elections were no exception: 48.7% in the first round and 42.5% in the second.
2. Effects of the electoral system
In the first round, candidates from the Forward Republic and Democratic Movement parties together received 32.3% of the vote. But according to the results of two rounds, they together have 348 mandates out of 577 (60.3%). Such a huge imbalance is a consequence of the majoritarian system. Moreover, there is a “fabricated majority” effect, when a party or coalition supported by less than half of the voters receives more than half of the seats in parliament. This effect is typical for French elections.
The distortions also apply to other parties. Table 1 compares the vote shares in the first round and the share of mandates received for the largest parties. If we estimate the Loosemore-Hanby disproportionality index (half the sum of the modules of deviations of the number of mandates from the number of votes) using data for large parties and groups of small parties, it will turn out to be equal to 32.8% - this is a very high indicator of disproportionality.
Table 1
It is interesting, first of all, to compare these results with the results of the first round. Data on the share of districts where representatives of these parties were in the lead are also presented in Table 1. These data provide an estimate of what the election results would have been if they had been held under a majoritarian system of relative majority - with the caveat: if the behavior of parties and voters had not has changed.
We see that the results of the parties “Forward, Republic!” and “Democratic Movement” in the first round were better than overall in the two rounds. "Forward, Republic!" was in the lead in 399 constituencies, and the Democratic Movement was in the lead in 52. In other words, if there had been no second round, the centrist coalition would have had 451 mandates (78.2%), and the Loosemore-Hanby index would have reached 46%.
The Republicans and Socialists, as well as Unconquered France, significantly improved their positions in the second round, but the positions of the National Front predictably worsened.
As noted in Section 1, to advance to the second round, it was necessary to obtain at least 12.5% of the number of registered voters in the district. However, if only one candidate passes this threshold, or no candidate passes it, the two candidates with the most votes advance to the second round - in which case the electoral system is effectively the same as that used in presidential elections in many countries (including France ).
This threshold (12.5%) was established in 1976, when voter turnout was very high (in 1973, 81.3% of registered voters participated in the first round of parliamentary elections). With a turnout of 81%, the threshold of 12.5% of registered voters means 15.4% of the number of voters who took part in the vote. This threshold is often passed by three or even four candidates. However, with a turnout of 50%, this is already 25% of the number of voters who voted, and such a high threshold is rarely exceeded by more than two candidates.
In the 2017 parliamentary elections, turnout in the first round was 48.7% of the vote. Calculations show that the average result of the leaders as a share of the number of registered voters was only 16.8%, the average result of the candidates in second place was 10.1%, third – 6.9% and fourth – 4.9%. Of the leaders, 497 people overcame the barrier of 12.5%, of the candidates who took second place - only 104, of the candidates who took third place - only one.
Thus, in only one district (district No. 1 of the Ob department), three candidates reached the second round - the candidate from the party “Forward, Republic!” (29.9% of those who took part and 15.1% of registered voters), the candidate from the Republicans (25.7 and 13.0%) and the candidate from the National Front (24.9 and 12.6 %). None of them withdrew their candidacy, and they all participated in the second round. The candidate from the party “Forward, Republic!” won. (36.5% of those who took part), the Republican candidate was not far behind him (35.3%). It is reasonable to assume that in the absence of a candidate from the National Front, the “Republican” would most likely win.
The situation would be different if the 1958 rule (a barrier of 5% of registered voters) was in effect, or 12.5% were counted from the number of voters. Thus, the barrier of 5% of the number of registered voters was overcome by 500 candidates who took third place and 298 candidates who took fourth place. The barrier of 12.5% of the number of voters who voted was overcome by 398 candidates who took third place and 114 candidates who took fourth place. It is difficult to say what the results of the second round would have been if these candidates had qualified, especially taking into account the possibility of mutual withdrawal of candidates.
However, the question of the conditions for entering the second round is important. The uniqueness of the French electoral system, its difference from the system in force in many countries during presidential elections, as well as in the USSR in 1989-1990, is precisely that more than one candidate can enter the second round. This is especially important in cases where the candidates in the first two places do not receive a very large share of the vote and the gap between the second and third candidates is not very large. If we return to the results of the first round of the 2017 parliamentary elections, the analysis shows that in 254 constituencies (that is, in slightly less than half of the constituencies), the gap between the second and third candidates did not exceed 2% of the number of registered voters. With such a gap, the third candidate’s chances of winning in the second round may not be lower than those of the second, especially if the second occupies extreme positions, and the third – more moderate ones.
Table 2 shows data on the number of candidates from different parties who took places from first to fourth in the first round. We see that a number of parties (Republicans, National Front, Unconquered France, Socialists) received a large number of third and fourth places, and therefore, with other rules for entering the second round, their participation in the second round could have been more significant. Considering the success of the parties in the second round, which was discussed above, it can be assumed that in this case the results of the “Republicans” and Socialists could have been higher.
Table 2
3. Second round and the party system
Only 4 deputies were elected in the first round. A second round was held in 573 constituencies, with three candidates in one constituency and only one in another (since the second-place candidate withdrew). Thus, in 571 constituencies there was a fight between two candidates. And in 132 of them, the candidate who took second place in the first round won.
It is interesting to see how the result of the second round depended on the voting results in the first round. From this point of view, two indicators are important: the leader’s result and his lead over the main rival (as a percentage of the number of voters who voted). Table 3 shows data on the number of victories of candidates who took first and second places in the first round, depending on the result of the winner of the first round. These data confirm the author’s conclusions made using the example of Russian elections. If the leader's result is less than 30%, both opponents have close chances of winning in the second round. In the range of 30 – 35%, the chances of the leader are higher, but the chances of the candidate who took second place in the first round are quite high. If the leader received more than 35%, then his opponent’s chances of success in the second round are quite low.
Table 3
Note that French law allows for a second round even if the leader receives more than 50% of the votes from the number of voters who voted, if he receives less than 25% of the number of registered voters. Such cases in this campaign occurred in 10 districts with low turnout, of which 8 were overseas districts and 2 were districts in overseas territories. Not surprisingly, the leaders of the first round won in all 10 districts. One could expect a different result only in the event of a very sharp change in voter activity.
Table 4 shows data on the number of victories of candidates who took first and second places in the first round, depending on the gap between the leaders of the first round. Here the effect is even more pronounced. If the gap is less than 10%, the chances of both opponents to win are almost equal. If the gap is in the range of 10 – 15%, then the leader’s chances of winning are quite high, and if the gap is above 15%, his victory is almost guaranteed.
Table 4
Even more interesting is the analysis of the results of the second round depending on which parties’ representatives participated in it. Table 5 shows data on the results of the second round for the most frequently encountered pairs. We see that candidates from the party “Forward, Republic!” were certainly successful only against National Front candidates. In a clash with candidates from other major parties (Republicans, Socialists, Unconquered France, Union of Democrats and Independents), candidates from the presidential party almost always suffered defeat if they were second in the first round, and often lost even when they were in the lead. first round (with the “Republicans” - in almost a third of cases, with the Socialists - in more than a third). The same situation applies to their allies – candidates from the Democratic Movement.
In this regard, we should pay more attention to the issue of reformatting the party system. As noted in section 1, in the political life of the Fifth Republic, the main role for a long time was played by the confrontation between the left and right blocs; the first was dominated by the Socialists, the second by the Gaullists most of the time (especially after 2002). The Union for French Democracy and its successor, the Democratic Movement, tried to play the role of the center, but invariably found themselves on the right flank.
Was there a public demand for the creation of a strong centrist party? If there was, it was probably hidden, but E. Macron and his team felt this demand, and perhaps in many ways created it themselves. At the end of 2016, it was not realized even by political scientists, who were generally inclined to believe that France was doomed to a right-wing victory in the 2017 elections.
However, over the past years, both major parties (the Socialists and the Republicans) have been losing popularity. “Republican” (Gaullist) N. Sarkozy became the second president after V. Giscard d’Estaing to lose the elections. The socialist who replaced him, F. Hollande, completely lost support by the end of his term and became the first president who did not even try to run for a second term. The failures of Sarkozy and Hollande could not but affect the positions of the parties they led. F. Fillon and B. Hamon, who replaced them, also turned out to be not very skillful politicians.
At the same time, the popularity of the far-right National Front, led by M. Le Pen, and the far-left Unconquered France, led by J.L., grew in popularity. Melenchon. By the beginning of 2017, Le Pen had surpassed Fillon in popularity. Mélenchon was initially more popular than Amon; in January–March 2017, Amon temporarily began to outstrip him, but then Mélenchon made a breakthrough, and Amon’s position weakened.
Thus, two prospects loomed before the French: the entry into the second round of two right-wing candidates (as in 2002) - Fillon and Le Pen, or (which for many was even more unacceptable) the entry into the second round of the far-right Le Pen and the far-left Mélenchon . An additional negative aspect of the latter scenario was the fact that the positions of the two extreme candidates on some issues converged; in particular, both were opposed to European integration.
The strengthening of the extreme flanks essentially tore apart the existing party system. The political platforms of the center-right and center-left were close, but for a long time they could not unite. Hollande's attempts to borrow some right-wing approaches led to a split in the socialist camp. The leaders of both the socialists and the “republicans” were forced to move to the edge in order to intercept some of the voters from Mélenchon and Le Pen, respectively. Perhaps the “primary” procedure also played a negative role, since this procedure helps to strengthen the radical wing of the party to the detriment of supporters of a compromise position.
Emmanuel Macron
Under these conditions, the popularity of the centrist Macron grew. According to sociologists, most of the voters who voted for Hollande and the leader of the Democratic Movement F. Bayrou in 2012, as well as a considerable part of those who then voted for Sarkozy, went to Macron. In the second round, some of the votes from Hamon, Mélenchon and Fillon went to Macron.
The result of the presidential elections could be interpreted as the creation of a new configuration of the party system. The victory was won by the centrist Macron, who became the head of the new party “Forward, Republic” (in alliance with the “Democratic Movement”, which had moved towards the center). The situation became similar to 1958, when S. De Gaulle and his party gained a dominant position. At the same time, on the right flank, the “Republicans” lost leadership to the “National Front”, and on the left, “Unconquered France” significantly outperformed the Socialists.
The first round of parliamentary elections introduced some adjustments to this scheme. The Republic Forward party retained its leadership (especially given its alliance with the Democratic Movement). “Unconquered France” received more votes here than the socialists, but not three times, but only one and a half times. The Socialists, together with a number of parties close to them, received almost the same number of votes as Hamon in the presidential election, while the candidates of Unconquered France were content with only 35% of the number of votes received by Mélenchon. On the right flank, the “Republicans” determined the “National Front” by the number of votes. These results are not surprising: the National Front and Unconquered France are the leading parties, and votes cast for their leaders do not fully convert into votes for their candidates in the constituencies.
If we evaluate the number of mandates won by the parties in the second round, then the Socialists retained leadership on the left flank (they have 29 mandates against 17 for “Unconquered France” and 10 for the Communists), and on the right flank the dominance of the “Republicans” is undeniable (they have 113 mandates versus 8 for the National Front).
At the same time, our analysis of the results of the second round shows that the “centrist” choice of France has already been largely shaken. The main content of the second round was the confrontation between Macron’s supporters and the “Republicans”, during which the “Republicans” managed to significantly push back the pro-presidential forces. There is an assumption that the French were afraid of the dominance of one party and in the second round began to increasingly support its rivals. Let us note that the socialists and even, to some extent, Mélenchon’s supporters also achieved success in confronting the Macronists in the second round.
However, in general, traditional left parties received too few parliamentary seats, and in fact the two-bloc model was reproduced again, only the left flank is now occupied by Macron’s party, a native of the Socialist Party.
4. The problem of low turnout
Voter turnout in the first and second rounds of the 2017 parliamentary elections was the lowest in the history of the Fifth Republic. Moreover, as noted in Section 1, the decline in turnout began when parliamentary elections began to be held immediately after the presidential ones. It is also worth noting that in 1988, when parliamentary elections took place immediately after the presidential elections, turnout was one of the lowest in that period.
Thus, the reason for the low turnout in parliamentary elections can be seen precisely in the fact that they become a continuation of the presidential campaign. On the one hand, some voters have the feeling that all the main problems have already been resolved with the election of the president, and parliamentary elections do not play a big role. On the other hand, fatigue takes its toll, especially if the presidential campaign was quite stormy (like this year).
An analysis of voter activity by district showed the following results. Most counties showed close to average turnout. In 177 districts the turnout was in the range of 45–50% and in another 204 – in the range of 50–55%. In 66 districts turnout was low (40–45%), in 75 districts it was high (55–60%). Thus, in 522 out of 577 districts, voter turnout was in the moderate range of 40–60%.
All 11 constituencies created for voting by French living abroad showed low turnout. The lowest turnout (9.4%) was in district No. 8, and the highest of these districts (27.6%) was in district No. 11. In total, 23 districts showed a turnout of 30% or less: in addition to 11 foreign districts, these were also 12 districts in the overseas territories - all 4 districts of Guadeloupe, all 4 districts of Martinique, both districts of Guiana, one of the 7 districts of Reunion and the district combining the territories of Saint-Barthélemy and Saint-Martin.
In the metropolitan districts, the minimum turnout is 32.1%. In addition to 7 overseas districts, another 18 metropolitan districts showed turnout in the range of 30 to 40%. This is one district of the Bouches-du-Rhône department (Provence), one district of the Meurthe-et-Moselle department and two districts of the Moselle department (Lorraine), two districts of the Nord department (North) and one district of the Rhone department. But most of these districts in the Ile-de-France region are in departments close to Paris with a large share of migrants: one district of the Hauts-de-Seine department, three districts of the Val-d'Oise department and 7 districts of the Seine-Saint-Denis department.
Turnout above 60% was recorded in only seven constituencies, one of them in the overseas territory of Wallis and Fortuna (81.3%), where there are only 8.5 thousand voters; one in the Norman department of Calvados (60.7%), one in the Aquitaine department of Corrèze (60.1%), one in the Brittany department of Côtes d'Armor (60.3%); the other three are in the Paris department (districts no. 2, 11 and 12; 61.7 - 62.3%). The average turnout for 18 Parisian districts was 56.7%, which is noticeably higher than the national average (48.7%), only in one of the Parisian districts was it below 50%.
In the second round, voter turnout dropped significantly – to 42.6%. The proportion of blank and invalid ballots has also increased. However, this decline in effective voting was not uniform. Turnout declined the most in arrondissement No. 2 of the Aveyron department, where only one candidate remained: only 34% of voters turned out for the non-competitive election, and 25% of them cast blank ballots (that is, they actually voted against the candidate).
At the same time, turnout increased in all 26 overseas districts where the second round was held, in one of the foreign districts, and in three of the four Corsican districts.
There is, although not very strong, but quite significant for 571 points, a correlation (0.13) between the decrease in effective voting (the share of valid ballots from the number of registered voters) and the amount of percentages received in the first round by eliminated candidates. This is quite explainable by the reluctance of some voters who voted for candidates who did not make it to the second round to vote for candidates who made it to the second round. However, there is practically no correlation between the decrease in turnout itself and the amount of percentages received in the first round by eliminated candidates. But there is a quite noticeable correlation (0.30) between the decrease in turnout and the leader’s lead over his main rival in the first round. Thus, we can conclude that one of the factors in the decline in turnout in the second round was the feeling of many voters that the result of the re-run was virtually a foregone conclusion.
I will also note that the decrease in voter turnout in the second round led to a phenomenon familiar to Russia: in 11 districts, the winner of the second round received fewer votes than the leader of the first round. True, in 10 cases it is the same candidate. And only in district No. 4 of Paris the situation is different: in the first round the candidate from the party “Forward, Republic!” was in the lead. with 17,726 votes. The Republican won the second round, but received only 17,024 votes. By the way, this is the only case of defeat in the second round of a candidate who received more than 45% of the votes in the first round. In such cases, the question arises: how legitimate is the election of the winner of the second round?
5. Organizational, legal and procedural issues - should we borrow something?
When familiarizing yourself with the practice of organizing elections in other countries, it turns out that many issues in another country are resolved differently than in ours. And in each country they are basically solved differently. Should you borrow someone else's experience? Most often the answer should be negative. Many decisions that have taken hold in other countries were made under certain conditions, often influenced by random factors; but they are always to some extent connected with the historical and cultural traditions of these countries. Therefore, attempts to copy someone else's experience in another environment will most often not lead to the desired consequences.
Perhaps the main conclusion when getting acquainted with other people’s experience is precisely the awareness of the fact that almost any issue of organizing elections has many solutions. And if any decision made in our country seems not optimal, we can try to change it, including taking into account foreign experience. But the main thing here is, firstly, the use of not just any experience, but the search for best practices, and secondly, the need to assess whether borrowed institutions and decisions will be in harmony with other institutions and established traditions.
5.1. Electoral system
Of all the institutions of electoral law, perhaps the electoral system (in the narrow sense of this concept) is most amenable to classification and analysis, as well as transfer to other soils.
If we talk about the electoral system that developed during the elections to the National Assembly of France, its defects are obvious, including for French society. This is primarily a strong discrepancy between the share of votes received by parties and the share of mandates they win. As is known, this is an immanent property of a majoritarian system - be it a system of relative or absolute majority. Our analysis of the 2017 election results (see Section 2) showed that under these conditions, a relative majority system would have produced even greater distortions than an absolute majority system, but there were also cases when the distortions under an absolute majority system were greater.
One of the consequences of such distortions is often a situation of “fabricated majority”, when a party or coalition supported by a minority of voters receives a majority of mandates. It is sometimes suggested that such a phenomenon is useful because it allows for the formation of a stable government. However, in my opinion, this usefulness is deceptive and plays a rather negative role in the long or even medium term. A party that has received a majority of mandates is tempted to act regardless of the opposition, but since it does not have the support of the majority of the population, its actions often cause the rejection of this majority. The result is an even greater decline in popularity. The defeat of N. Sarkozy in 2012 and the socialists in 2017 are clear examples of this.
As far as I know, the question of replacing the electoral system for parliamentary elections and introducing elements of proportionality has now been raised in France, including by the ruling coalition. In any case, it is not difficult to understand that the absolute majority system is not optimal for parliamentary elections.
However, for the election of officials (presidents, governors, mayors, etc.), a two-round system of an absolute majority is preferable to a one-round system of a relative majority, and therefore the question of choosing a specific model of a two-round system remains relevant. In this regard, the French system of allowing more than two candidates to advance to the second round deserves attention. In conditions where the gap between the second and third candidates is small, and the candidates who took the first two places in the first round receive low voter support, the right to participate in the second round of only these two candidates is not obvious. Let us note that paragraph 1 of Article 71 of the Federal Law “On Basic Guarantees of Electoral Rights and the Right to Participate in a Referendum of Citizens of the Russian Federation” allows for the possibility of more than two candidates participating in the second round (re-vote). However, no regional law provides for such a possibility.
5.2. Election administration
France does not have the usual system of election commissions in France. The organization of elections is partially entrusted to state bodies - the Ministry of Internal Affairs and its subordinate prefectures, and partially to municipalities. In particular, the Ministry of Internal Affairs is engaged in cutting out electoral districts, prefectures register candidates (at the same time, they attract volunteers for technical work for a fee). Municipalities designate polling stations and form election bureaus that organize voting and counting of votes at the precinct. The results of voting by precinct are transmitted to the municipalities, from there to the prefectures and, finally, to the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The functions of municipalities in organizing elections are considered a state duty, which they do not have the right to shirk. At the same time, the conduct of municipal voting and vote counting is controlled by state bodies.
The results of elections at the federal level inspire public confidence. We talked with a representative of one of the most opposition parties, the National Front. He criticized many aspects of the election, but noted that there was no fraud in the voting and counting of votes. However, in local elections, suspicions of fraud sometimes arise - this is also admitted by the Ministry of Internal Affairs.
Photo: French Radio International - RFI
According to representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, public trust in the election results is based on three fundamental principles. The first principle is centralization and state control. Obviously, this principle only works in conditions of a high level of citizens’ trust in government institutions. The second principle is the transparency of all election procedures, the third is the possibility of appealing against violations to the judiciary (this principle can also only work in conditions of trust in the judiciary).
We asked representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs a question: since the ministry is headed by a politician belonging to one of the parties, how do they manage to maintain independence from political pressure? They replied that in today's conditions it is difficult to imagine that a minister could interfere in the electoral process - the risk that his political career would end there is too great. At the same time, civil servants have the right not to carry out illegal orders, and also seek protection from the trade union. And in general, a civil servant risks more by carrying out illegal instructions than by refusing to carry them out.
However, from conversations in the Paris prefecture, we learned that there is at least one aspect that creates advantages for the ruling party. Prefectures have departments dedicated to pre-election analytics, including preparing forecasts of election results. They transmit their analytical materials to the government, and thereby the ruling coalition receives additional information from the state budget, which it can use to formulate election strategy and tactics.
In addition to the bodies involved in organizing elections, France has a system of commissions that perform control functions. These commissions are formed by different bodies and are considered independent from the executive branch. Thus, at the national level there is a commission that controls the financing of political parties and election campaigns, as well as a commission for monitoring public opinion polls. At the prefectural level, there are commissions that oversee the compilation of voter lists, commissions that review candidate campaign materials, commissions that monitor compliance with election procedures at polling stations, and commissions that certify election results. Complaints regarding election results are considered by the Constitutional Council.
An example is the National Commission for the Audit of Campaign Accounts and Political Party Financing. It consists of 9 members, of which 3 are appointed on the proposal of the Vice-President of the State Council, 3 on the proposal of the Chairman of the Supreme Court and 3 on the proposal of the Chairman of the Court of Accounts.
As far as we were able to understand from conversations with representatives of federal commissions, they employ former government officials who have a good pension, and receive very little remuneration for their work on the commission.
In general, the organization of the electoral process and control over it in France is interesting, but it is obvious that the French scheme is very specific and can hardly be transferred to other soils.
5.3. Parties and candidates
To register candidates for elections to the National Assembly, as far as we have been able to understand, neither signatures nor a deposit are required (previously, a deposit was apparently required). Candidates are nominated by political parties. We did not find out whether there could be independent candidates. Later I read that a candidate can be nominated by one voter. However, in the lists of candidates for these elections, not a single candidate was listed as an independent. However, it is extremely easy to create a party in France (two people are enough), and their number currently exceeds 500. Of course, most parties do not really operate.
A certain limitation when nominating candidates is the rules of non-electability and incompatibility of positions. There is a fairly large list of officials who cannot run for office. In particular, a ban was recently introduced on being both a mayor and a deputy. And there are even restrictions for former officials. In particular, a former prefect cannot run in the districts of the department where he held this position.
When registering candidates, all this is checked. However, overlaps are also possible. For example, we were told that if a candidate does not file financial statements on time, a judge can disqualify him from running for three years. However, the country does not maintain a unified list of persons deprived of this right, and if a candidate wants to run in another department, he may be registered there, since they will not have information about the court verdict.
Apparently, there are usually few refusals to register. The Paris prefecture told us that they had not had a single refusal in this campaign.
The number of candidates is large, but not too large. There were 7,877 candidates in the last campaign, an average of 13.7 candidates per district. Some of them received a very small number of votes. Thus, in the table of voting results, 102 candidates have 0 votes (about them it can still be assumed that they withdrew from the elections), 27 candidates have 1 vote, 12 have 2 votes, 9 have 3 (there is an anecdote about this: the wife realized that her candidate husband had a mistress).
Apparently, the main limitation on the number of candidates is the requirement that the candidate print his own ballot. It should be noted here that in France (as in some other countries) each candidate has his own ballot and, in order to vote for a particular candidate, the voter must put his ballot in an envelope, which is then placed in the ballot box. Candidates who receive more than 5% of the votes are later refunded the money spent on printing ballots. Thus, a candidate who does not enjoy significant voter support is forced to incur certain expenses (something like a deposit, which, however, does not go into the budget), even if he does not release campaign materials. If the candidate does not print ballots, then for the voter he will actually not exist, despite official registration.
5.4. Election campaign
One of the features of the campaign campaign in France can be considered the rule according to which prefectures mail out campaign materials printed by candidates to all voters. However, representatives of the Ministry of Internal Affairs in a conversation with us expressed the opinion that this is too wasteful - during the presidential and parliamentary campaigns, 170 million euros were spent on mailings. They are advocating to stop this waste and move to educating voters online.
During the election campaign and before it (for 6 months), it is not allowed to purchase airtime and print space in the media for political advertising. At the same time, parliamentary parties are provided with free time on television. This rule has not been questioned for a long time. However, the new pro-presidential party “Forward, Republic!” considered herself unfairly deprived and filed a complaint, which was satisfied.
Street agitation
At the same time, representatives of the National Front believe that the main media are in the hands of the oligarchy and supported E. Macron and his party through indirect campaigning.
5.5. Campaign financing
Only individuals and political parties can make donations to a candidate's election fund. Other legal entities are prohibited from financing candidate election campaigns. From a theoretical point of view, this is the right decision, since supporting candidates should be a personal choice of a citizen. However, in practice, this ban is easily circumvented, and as a result, campaign financing becomes less transparent.
Serious problems are created by the practice in which candidates receive basic funds for an election campaign in the form of bank loans. Since the state reimburses candidates for a significant portion of the expenses, the borrowed funds are then returned to the banks. However, banks are free to give or not give loans to candidates, and this creates certain inequalities. Representatives of the National Front, who were unable to obtain loans from French banks, complained about such inequality, in particular. Now, in addition to this, it is proposed to prohibit candidates from taking loans from foreign banks.
In addition, a focus on loans and government compensation deprives candidates and parties of incentives to collect membership dues and donations from supporters and thereby weakens their connection with voters.
I will note two more points that deserve attention. France has requirements for gender balance when nominating lists of candidates. Sanctions for violating it are financial: a party with deviations of more than 2% is deprived of part of the state funding.
The second aspect is related to the primaries. In general, the costs associated with holding this internal party event are not regulated. But a rule was developed: the expenses of the winner of the primaries must subsequently be included in his expenses for the election campaign.
5.6. Voter Registration
France has a voluntary voter registration system. A registered voter receives a voter card, which he presents along with his passport at the polling station to receive a ballot.
Supporters of introducing a similar voter card in Russia do not take into account that in France, a system of voluntary voter registration was introduced in the absence of an automatic registration system similar to the one in force in our country. At present, a system of automatic registration has already been created for young citizens entering the voting age, so that, apparently, over time in France, voluntary registration will be replaced by automatic one.
In addition, in France there is no obligation to note it in your passport when changing your place of residence. Therefore, it is the voter card that carries information about the current address of its owner.
We were told that having the cards is convenient for the election office: the cards have a unique number by which the voter can be easily found on the list. However, the inconvenience for the voter associated with the need to go to the polling station with two documents is also obvious.
At the same time, the voluntary registration system creates certain problems. Thus, some citizens who have the right to vote are not registered. The number of such citizens is estimated by some experts at 4–5 million (which is about 10% of the number of registered voters). In this case, both the conditions for election in the first round and the conditions for entering the second round are determined through the share of votes from the number of registered voters. We should not forget the turnout indicator, which, although it does not have legal significance, is important as some indicator of legitimacy - it is also calculated from the number of registered voters. However, what does the number of registered voters mean in such circumstances? This is obviously not the number of citizens eligible to vote, which is significantly larger. But it cannot be interpreted as the number of “active” or “conscious” voters, since even in the most popular elections, the presidential one, turnout never exceeded 88%. It is obvious that there are citizens who registered as voters, but do not actually participate in the elections. Thus, the number of registered voters is not a socially important indicator, and it is self-deception to calculate percentages of votes or voter turnout from it.
Another problem is that a voter who changes his place of residence must re-register - and do so in advance, no later than December 31 of the year preceding the election year. However, not all voters do this. Some experts estimate the number of voters who changed their address but did not have time to re-register at 7 million. And these citizens are actually deprived of the opportunity to vote.
There is no early voting or postal voting in France. Voting at home is also not provided. At the same time, there is proxy voting, but one citizen can vote by proxy for no more than two voters.
As noted above, each candidate has his own ballot. Stacks of ballots lie on the table of a member of the election bureau. The voter receives an envelope from a member of the elections office, then takes the ballots. In order not to violate the secrecy of voting, he must take several ballots. We observed voting in the second round, when there were two packs of ballots, and the voter had to take both ballots. In a closed booth, he places one ballot in an envelope and throws the unused ballots into the trash. However, the voter can bring a ballot from home, since ballots for all candidates are sent to him by mail. The voter may also place a blank sheet in the envelope, which effectively means voting against all candidates, and such ballots will be counted separately.
Ballots
The ballot box has a curtain, and the chairman of the bureau opens this curtain after the voter is verified and has the right to place an envelope in the ballot box. The ballot box is locked with two locks, the keys to which are held by two deputy chairmen of the bureau.
The procedure in which each candidate has his own ballot is less protected from manipulation than the usual Russian procedure with a ballot containing information about all candidates. In our country, a ballot is a document of strict accountability, and the precinct election commission is obliged to check the balance of ballots (the number of ballots received by the commission is equal to the sum of the numbers issued and canceled) - these measures are designed to make stuffing more difficult. Under the French procedure, no balance of ballots can be verified. Another thing is that they are not afraid of stuffing here.
Another disadvantage of the current order in France is the need to print ballots with an obvious excess. At the same time, there is still no guarantee that a stack of ballots for any candidate will not be empty before the voting ends, especially if attackers try.
To count the votes, the chairman of the electoral bureau attracts voters voting in a given precinct. During voting, voters are asked to take part in the counting. They return to the polling station at the end of voting, the chairman divides them into fours, seats them on tables and gives each four a pack of envelopes taken from the ballot box for counting.
The calculation is as follows. The first counter takes the ballot from the envelope and hands it to the second. The second announces for whom the vote was cast. The third and fourth counters each make notes in their own table. Their results should be the same.
This procedure is less transparent than that written down in Russian law, but is rarely implemented in practice. Several packs are counted at once at different tables, and the observer cannot keep track of them all at once. Three counters do not always control whether counter number two reads out the contents of the ballot correctly.
However, the very organization of the counting procedure with the help of ordinary voters appears to create an atmosphere of high trust. Probably in another society such a procedure could give rise to abuse, but in France it works well. At the same time, control on the part of government officials should not be discounted.
5.9. Contesting election results
When discussing the problem of challenging election results, all our interlocutors paid attention to the basic approach. If there is a complaint about violations during the elections, then first of all the court pays attention to the gap between the winner and his main rival. If the gap is large, the election results are not in doubt. If the gap is small, then the scale of violations is assessed - these could be violations both during the campaign and during the voting and counting process. And if the court finds that the scale of violations exceeds the gap, the election results are canceled.
Lyubarev A.E.,
Candidate of Legal Sciences,
Member of the Council of the movement for the protection of voters' rights "Voice",
Chairman of the International Public Organization "Expert Forum"
"Election laws - for the voter"
Data from various polls projected the presidential party from 75% to 80% of the votes in the second round of parliamentary elections and 440–470 seats in the National Assembly, respectively. The closest competitor - the right-wing "Republicans" - could only hope for 70–90 seats, and the Socialists - 20–30. Marine Le Pen's National Front is doing even worse: having received 13% of the votes in the first round, her party can only count on 1-4 parliamentary seats in the second.
The traditional parties were so desperate to beat the newcomer that they called on their supporters to vote for themselves just so that there would be at least some opposition in the legislature. Otherwise, it turns out that the French have elected not a president, but a king, they joke in the local media. This joke ceases to be funny if you remember how in one of his early interviews Emmanuel Macron said that the country needs a strong leader, like Napoleon or Charles de Gaulle, and hinted, of course, at himself.
Support in parliament will come in handy for Macron. He is going to change labor laws, cut thousands of jobs in the public sector and launch a large-scale program for retraining and investment in the economy. When Socialist Prime Minister Manuel Valls tried to implement similar labor reforms, thousands of protesters took to the streets.
Parliamentary elections in France are held according to a majoritarian system. This means that each of the 577 electoral districts corresponds to one seat in the National Assembly and will be occupied by the candidate who receives the most votes in this district. The first round weeded out the smaller parties, and on June 18, the political heavyweights faced off. However, the French themselves are already tired of election battles - the current presidential campaign has turned out to be so tense and eventful. This is evidenced by the record low turnout in the first round: about 49% of voters went to the polls on June 11.
“As Macron expected, on the wave of victory in the presidential elections, his party receives an overwhelming majority in parliament,” he emphasized in a commentary to MK. Head of the Center for French Studies at the Institute of Europe of the Russian Academy of Sciences Yuri Rubinsky. “There has been a radical renewal and rejuvenation of the political class, which was long overdue and played into the hands of Macron and his party. Not only does he not have a strong opponent, but he does not have a real alternative. But this does not mean at all that this balance of power has already been established. The fact that in the first round of parliamentary elections more than 50% of voters abstained suggests that the majority voted not so much for Macron’s party as against his rivals.
Moreover, in such a large majority, in which more than half of the deputies have no experience and have never been elected anywhere, unity and the ability to make decisions are not guaranteed. When carrying out serious reforms, conflicts are inevitable and can arise within the majority. On the other hand, limited representation of opposition forces can lead to these conflicts spilling onto the streets.
As for the National Front, Marine Le Pen’s party is now experiencing a crisis. One of the largest nationalist figures, Marion Maréchal Le Pen, has defiantly left politics; Marine Le Pen’s right hand, Florian Philippot, is creating his own movement... So the claims of the National Front that it will become the center of gravity of all opposition forces are premature.”
In France, on June 11, 2017, the first round of parliamentary elections took place. Unlike presidential elections with constantly changing scenarios and an active electorate, the election campaign for the parliamentary elections took place quietly, almost unnoticed, without large rallies and with few meetings with their supporters, who were unable to mobilize voters. Candidates and their campaigners only hand out leaflets, encountering virtually no response from the French.
The parties of the candidates who were defeated in the presidential elections were not able to find slogans that would mobilize the electorate, while “Forward, Republic!” How could E. Macron’s party limit itself to a simple call: “Let’s give the president a parliamentary majority!” After 2002, an iron law was established in France: parliamentary elections, which take place a month after the presidential elections, turn into a formality, a confirmation of the choice made earlier. As the Le Monde newspaper wrote, the parliamentary elections were “absorbed, absorbed by the presidential elections.”
The presidential coalition is the winner of the parliamentary elections: the Forward, Republic! party. together with François Bayrou's centrist MoDem movement, its ally, won 32.2% of the votes in the first round and will receive between 390 and 430 parliamentary seats out of 577 after the second round. Ipsos, a public opinion institute, gives an even more stunning result - from 415 to 455 places. Commentators call this success a “genuine tsunami.”
Record absenteeism
Another winner of the parliamentary elections was absenteeism, which reached a record level of 51.2%, more than 8 points higher than the record of the 2012 parliamentary elections of 42.7%. Some voters were confident that “everything is already over” and the presidential elections completed the electoral cycle, which actually began with the primaries of the center-right coalition in the fall of 2016. In seven months, voters are called to the ballot box eight times: twice in the primaries of right-wing parties, twice in the primaries of the Socialist Party, in two rounds of presidential elections and, finally, twice in parliamentary elections. Natural fatigue from politics sets in.
And political life itself does not inspire much confidence. According to an Ipsos poll conducted from June 7 to 10, about a third of the French (30%) do not trust the deputies and are “disappointed in their activities.” 16% of respondents explain their absenteeism by saying that “not a single program seems convincing to them.” 18% think that “no matter the outcome, nothing will change.” These voters don't trust Macron, but they don't want to interfere with him either.
Not a single party was able to offer mobilizing slogans and in fact set minimal goals for their electorate: to create a parliamentary group (National Front (NF) or Socialist Party), get ahead of the FSP (Mélenchon and “Unconquered France!”), and maintain party unity (Republicans). The overabundance of candidates, since in some districts up to 25 people competed, clearly confused voters. This time, another record was broken: in terms of the number of candidates - there were 7,877. The abundance of candidates rather frightened off rather than contributed to the mobilization of voters.
And finally, a legitimist reflex, characteristic of presidential regimes, arose in the electorate: 65% of the French wanted E. Macron to achieve a majority in the National Assembly, and two-thirds of them wanted the success of the president’s party only because they believed that the government should calmly govern, although only a minority shared his ideas (only 14%).
Sociology of parliamentary elections
The electorate of the “presidential coalition” has all the features of a typical dominant “party for everyone”: in almost all age groups or social strata it is ahead of other parties or competes with them. It is ahead of other parties in all age groups from 18 to 70 years. Only among people over 70 are Republicans slightly ahead of the “Forward, Republic!” party. – 34% versus 33%. The president's party got the worst result among those of the most working age group (35-49): only 28%. And in this age category the NF is able to show some resistance: it received 22%. Mélenchon's movement achieves the best results among young people: with only 11%, the party "Unconquered France!" received 18% among those aged 18 to 24 years and even 21% among those aged 25 to 34 years.
As in the presidential elections, the NF achieved its greatest success among the working class: 29% of workers voted for it, while only 26% voted for the president’s party. On the other hand, Madame Le Pen’s party completely failed in the middle strata: only 5% of the “cadres”, that is, educated French people engaged in managerial or intellectual activities, voted for it. Mélenchon performed better in this category, with his party receiving 11%. Pensioners began to vote for Macron: his party received 34%, and the Republicans only 30%.
"Forward, Republic!" achieves high results in the categories of people with incomes above 3,000 euros per month (43%), but loses to the NF in low-income groups (below 1,250 euros per month) - 25% and 17% of the votes, respectively. In cities, Macron completely dominates (41%), but in rural areas he is forced to compete with the Republicans (the Presidential Party scored 26%, and the RP - 21%).
Victory of the party “Forward, Republic!” and the new elite
The victory of the presidential coalition also has its downside. First, Macron’s parliamentary majority could turn into a party of loyal supporters, completely devoted to their leader, a “party of foot soldiers” (parti godillot), and the legislature would cease to fulfill its function in the French system of “checks and balances.” Secondly, the electoral “tsunami” will bring to the National Assembly a huge number of new people who are not very knowledgeable about parliamentary activities. In a private conversation, Macron has already said that there is a danger of parliament turning into a “talking shop” or even a “mess” (futoir), and suggested finding tools to control the activities of deputies.
A study conducted by Luc Reuben of the political science center CEVIPOF among 529 Forward Republic! candidates selected from among 19,000 applicants showed the scale of changes that Macron and his party have brought to the composition of the parliamentary corps and their borders. The new president has promised a "renewal of political life in France" and Macron's party is showing a significant rejuvenation and renewal of its parliamentary corps.
Firstly, real parity has been established between men (262 candidates) and women (267). Secondly, the average age of candidates has dropped to 47 years (among other candidates it is 49 years). Third, more than half of the candidates were never elected (284 out of 529). And the composition of the candidates in terms of their political affiliation showed a relatively high spread: 33% of them came from left-wing parties in the broad sense of the word (from the FSP or the environmental movement), while 15% came from right-wing parties (RP, the Union of Democrats and Independents and others ) and 12.3% from the Bairro movement. Almost 40% did not previously belong to any political party, but are now members of Forward, Republic! But even in the latter group, which can be thought of as coming from civil society, many were involved in politics. They were either political activists, or worked as employees of the “personal offices” of the minister, or were elected at the local level, or headed some kind of public organization, or were simply local officials. Among them there are few people who have never been associated with politics.
In terms of its socio-professional composition, Macron’s party even shows a certain regression: among the new candidates there are even fewer representatives of the popular strata than in the deputy corps of 2012 (7% and 5.6%, respectively). For those coming from the people, a political career has always opened up the possibility of a path to the top, while the selection carried out by recruiting specialists in Macron's party encouraged more elite categories. In addition, in Macron’s party there are much more people from the private sector: they make up 60% of the entire corps of “Forward, Republic!” candidates, while 40% came from the state sector (and among the “newcomers” they made up only 33%). This is important news, because state representation in the French parliament has always been very high. Ruben sees in this a potential threat of a conflict of interest (and the prosecutor’s office has already opened seven cases against candidates for deputies from the “presidential coalition”). But, on the other hand, it would be a clear utopia to change and remake the “blocked society” (in the terminology of the great French sociologist Michel Crozier) with the help of officials.
National Front: collapse of hopes
The National Front won 24.9% of the votes in the European elections in May 2014 and became the first party in France. He confirmed his success in the departmental and regional elections of 2015 (25.2% and 27.7% of the vote). Since 2011, Marine Le Pen has gone from success to success, but for the first time there was a strong reversal of the far-right wave, and the FN received only 14% of the vote (in 2012 the FN had almost the same amount - 13.6%). Although Marine Le Pen reached the second round of the presidential election and was ahead of Macron in 45 constituencies, the FN was unable to create a parliamentary group and will have to be content with a few parliamentary seats (from 1 to 5, sociologists say). The drop in turnout has led to the fact that the number of constituencies in which three candidates remain is reduced to a minimum, which is practically the only chance for the PF to win (there were 34 in 2012, now there is only one constituency). In the event of a duel, the principle of “republican discipline” comes into play, and the electorates of all candidates unite against the National Front.
There are several additional reasons for the failure of SF. Firstly, Marine Le Pen herself was clearly psychologically broken by the presidential campaign and remained silent for almost ten days. Only on May 18 she announced her candidacy for the parliamentary elections, but still limited her participation in the NF election campaign and held only one rally.
Secondly, a severe internal crisis began in the NF. The conflict has intensified between two currents of the National Front - the “national republicans” led by Florian Philippot, vice-president of the party and Marine Le Pen’s “right hand”, who advocates the “sovereignization” of France, leaving the EU, returning to the franc, abandoning political alliances with other right-wing parties, strong social policies that provide support for low-paid categories, and the movement of “liberal conservatives”, formerly led by Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, niece of Marine Le Pen, who demanded more liberalism, less “leftism” in the socio-political sphere , establishing allied relations with right-wing parties and a more conservative policy in public relations (oriented towards integral Catholicism).
Maréchal-Le Pen has decided to leave politics, although apparently temporarily. According to all polls, her ideology dominates the National Front, and Filippo is considered responsible for the defeat of the FN in the presidential elections. After the NF congress, Filippo himself may also leave the party and try to create his own party structure. He has already organized the “Patriots” association outside the framework of party structures. The symbiotic formation in which Philippot’s strategy secured the votes of workers and employees experiencing a process of declining social status and dissatisfied with all types of “globalization”, and the activities of Marechal-Le Pen attracted the votes of conservative voters dissatisfied with immigration, “marriage for all”, may be destroyed. an atmosphere of tolerance, and militant attitudes towards Islam and Muslims. Immediately after the parliamentary elections in the Popular Front, a discussion will begin that is completely unusual for authoritarian parties, but to which Marine Le Pen has already given her consent. Apparently, everything will be discussed: from renaming the party to choosing a political strategy and ideology. There may even be a question about the party leader.
The third reason is “differentiated absenteeism.” Marine Le Pen's voters, after her defeat in the second round, were confident that the game had already been played, and only 58% of them came to vote in the parliamentary elections. In terms of its social composition, its electorate is quite apolitical: French people without diplomas and workers prefer to vote only in presidential elections and always largely ignore parliamentary elections (in 2012, the FN also lost 4 percentage points - from 18% in presidential elections to 14% in parliamentary ones) . Electorates of other parties abstained from voting less often.
And finally, the electoral system, as usual, blocks the FN: the party has no allies, no reserves in the electorate, and it faces the hostility of public opinion and the practical impossibility of winning a duel in the second round.
At the same time, the “tsunami” produced by Macron actually equalized the chances of all parties opposing him - the Republicans, socialists, Mélenchon supporters, and “frontists.” The real opposition to the new regime will be the party that adapts to the new conditions the fastest. And in principle, the FN still has some hopes, although not very serious ones: according to an IFOP poll, 48% of the French consider Marine Le Pen’s party to be the main opposition force (only 12% for the Republicans and 36% for Mélenchon’s “Unconquered France!”). Being in opposition to Macron in everything, it can restore its position if Macron’s regime begins to have problems and the FN overcomes the crisis and develops a new strategy.
GOP Tough Choices
The Republican election campaign was led by the senator and mayor of Troyes, François Barouin, who himself is not participating in the campaign and actually admitted defeat in advance. The party was unable to find attractive slogans and only proposed “not to give Macron blank forms with a signature,” that is, to maintain the possibility of control over the actions of the government. Only the “Ferrand case” (Macron’s campaign chief and minister in the new government, against whom a prosecutor’s investigation was launched on charges of abuse) gave the Republicans any hope. Christian Jacob, one of the “hardline oppositionists,” said: “The Prime Minister explained to us that all candidates must go through a scanner. But maybe the scanner is broken, or Mr. Philip has something with his eyesight.”
The Republican Party received 21.5% of the vote and can hope for 85-125 seats in the National Assembly, that is, its result will be even worse than in 1981, when the right and center were left with 150 deputies. Its initial goal was to gain a majority in parliament and impose “coexistence” on Macron, but now the question is different: how constructive should one be with Macron’s government? The electorate of the Republic of Poland is increasingly oriented towards Macron: 58% of its voters are satisfied with the activities of the president, 67% with the appointment of E. Philippe as prime minister and 56% with the composition of the government.
The Republicans split into three factions. Supporters of Alain Juppé and Bruno Le Maire are “ready to work” with and in Macron’s government. Macron did not even nominate his candidates against them. And in general, these Republicans have a good chance of winning in the second round (for example, Thierry Soler in the 9th arrondissement of Haute-de-Seine). There is a group of hardline oppositionists, led by the president of the Auvergne-Rhône-Alpes region council, Laurent Vauquier, who seek to embody a “strong, popular and social right.” But their results in the first round are calculated “only with the help of a magnifying glass.” Finally, there is the “constructive opposition,” whose representatives wish Macron success, but do not want to participate in the government. It is headed by Xavier Bertan, chairman of the council of the Haute-France region, and Valerie Pecresse, chairman of the council of the Ile-de-France region. The RP strategy will be formed depending on whose results will be better - constructive candidates or the irreconcilable opposition. The liberal newspaper Le Figaro writes: “When Emmanuel Macron appoints Edouard Philippe as prime minister, and at the same time Marion Maréchal-Le Pen extends her hand to Laurent Vauquier, the party is inevitably in for a stunning debate.” And, apparently, splits.
Unprecedented defeat of the Socialist Party
In 2012, the FSP received 34.4% of the votes in the parliamentary elections, managed to win 258 deputies and, together with its allies – the Radical Left (11 seats) and the Greens (16 seats) had a stable majority. But in 2017, there was practically nothing left of the all-powerful Socialist Party: it received only 9.5% of the votes and can count on only 20-30 deputies, that is, less than in 1993, at the lowest point of the fall of the Socialist Party (52 deputies).
The membership base is shrinking, the party treasury is empty, there is no real party leader, leading politicians lost the parliamentary elections. Already in the first round, the former FSP candidate in the presidential elections Benoit Hamon and the first secretary of the party Christophe Cambadelis, as well as ex-ministers M. Fekl, O. Filippetit, P. Boistard, K. Ecker and others were defeated. On the contrary, those FSP candidates who were at least somehow supported by Macron (for example, former Prime Minister M. Valls or former Labor Minister El-Komri) made it to the second round. FSP is called an “extinct star.” Experts from the Jean Jaurès Foundation, the party’s think-tank, state: “In five years, the FSP has moved from the state of a hegemonic party in elections to almost complete disappearance.” Each of the candidates waged their own campaign: some tried to “stick” to the presidential bloc, while others, on the contrary, attacked Macron. The survival of the Socialist Party in its current form is impossible. Due to the attraction of two forces - “Forward, Republic!” and “Unconquered France!” – it is very difficult to carry out a mutation of the socialist party, as F. Mitterrand managed in 1971 at the congress in Epinay.
Melenchon is doing somewhat better. Party "Unconquered France!" gained 11%, that is, more than the Socialist Party (Mélenchon himself received 19.6% in the presidential elections, eight and a half percentage points more than his party). But Melenchon can declare his movement the winner in the struggle for the left electorate, and together with the communists, with whom he, however, broke the alliance, the “radical left” is even ahead of the National Front (the PCF received 2.7% of the votes). 69 candidates of the Mélenchon movement made it to the second round, which opens up the possibility of getting more than 15 deputies and creating a parliamentary group. Most often, his candidates eliminated the socialist in the first round, and now they will have to fight with the representative of Macron’s party, which is quite difficult. Even Mélenchon himself is not guaranteed victory in Marseille: he scored 34.3% in the first round, while Macron's candidate received 22.7%. But voting in the second round is completely unpredictable. It is still very far from the implementation of the plan to create in France something like PODEMOS in Spain.
Conclusion
The political cataclysms that Emmanuel Macron's victory caused are quite comparable to the rise to power of Charles de Gaulle and the formation of the Fifth Republic. Macron managed to achieve a “state of grace” for the first hundred days, gain an absolute majority in the National Assembly and begin reforms. According to sociological surveys, the majority of French people are satisfied with its current activities. 76% approve of his foreign policy activities, 75% - measures in the field of security (in particular, the extension of the state of emergency), 74% - his program in the field of education, 73% - bills to moralize political life. True, he failed to infect them with his optimism: only a third (34%) believe that the situation will improve, 26% believe it will deteriorate, and 40% assume that nothing will change. The vast majority (69%) hope that he will be able to improve the competitiveness of French enterprises.
During the first 18 months of his rule, the French president plans to introduce six social reforms through parliament. He began with the most difficult and conflicting of them - the reform of the labor code. In this area, it is much more difficult to obtain French support: half are for reform, and half are against. But so far the reaction to it has been relatively calm, especially when compared with the wave of strikes and demonstrations that took place during the passage of the “El-Komri bill” to change labor legislation through the National Assembly in 2016. We can say that Macron has become a “Teflon” president, judging by the calm reaction of voters to the “Ferrand case,” who is leading in his constituency, and the positions of trade unions, which are simply “paralyzed” by the government project, which largely breaks the usual negotiation process with patronage. The question is whether French society, having abandoned the traditional divide between left and right, will be able to accept a new political structure for a relatively long period and agree to reforms that encroach on long-won social positions. So far, the position of French society is rather one of wait-and-see, especially given the high level of absenteeism.
Igor Bunin – President of the Center for Political Technologies
Emmanuel Macron is one step away from making his victory in the presidential election final. On May 7, more than 60% of the French voted for him - this is an exceptionally high result, which gives the new president a serious credit of confidence. However, this is only part of the path that he must go through in order to gain real power in the country.
The political system of the Fifth Republic is designed in such a way that the president cannot govern effectively without a strong parliamentary majority. Previous experience has shown that the dominance of the opposition in the lower house turns him into a figurehead.
Actual power in this case passes into the hands of the prime minister, and the president, who according to the constitution has significant powers, becomes the republican analogue of the Queen of England. This is clearly not the scenario that Macron was counting on when planning to occupy the Elysee Palace.
New president - old opposition
Macron does not hide the fact that he has big plans: updating the entire political life of the country, a complete rotation of elites, restructuring the French economy. To bring them to life, we need strong support in parliament. Remaining a lame duck, Macron would quickly become the target of sharp criticism from almost all sides. The new president’s emphasized non-partisanship is not only an advantage that voters appreciate, but also his weakness: as a result of the May 7 elections, almost all the main political forces in the country turned out to be against him and became opposition.
Control of parliament is therefore vital for Macron. It is equally important for his opponents to prevent this from happening. The current campaign for elections to the French parliament is distinguished by the amazing unanimity of almost all parties participating in it - to prevent the victory of the presidential party “Forward, Republic!”
The main weapon of the opposition was a simple formula - no concentration of power in one hand. It united forces as diverse as the leftist “Unconquered France” and the respectable center-right party “Republicans”.
The fact is that the routine of election programs, providing for raising or lowering taxes, tightening or liberalizing immigration policy, has receded into the background in front of the main slogans - “The winner takes all!” and “They will not pass!” "Forward, Republic!" in fact, did not formulate any clear platform. Its main message to voters is to give the president a majority so that he can work for the good of France. Her opponents have a mirror position: to clip Macron’s wings at any cost.
System "outcast"
All this raised the stakes of the first round of parliamentary elections to the limit. The figures show that the president's party managed to win an important victory. A third of the votes for a political force that is only a year and a half old is, of course, a success. The old parties suffered a serious defeat.
The Socialists continued their descent, begun by the failed presidential campaign. Their key leaders failed in the first round, and they will have to leave their parliamentary seats. The center-right, with its 20% of the vote, could halve its presence in the lower house.
The arithmetic here is approximate. France has a majoritarian electoral system. There are no party lists; a specific candidate runs for election in a specific electoral district. In fact, the country is not holding one election, but 577 separate votes. Only those who were able to get more than 12.5% of the votes advance to the second round, after which the most important part of the action begins - the formation of blocs and the exchange of electoral support.
As a result, the winner is often not the one who has the highest personal rating, but the one who was “pushed through” by the main political forces. Such a system does not always look democratic, but it effectively cuts out outcasts.
In particular, it was thanks to her that the National Front, whose leader Marine Le Pen is one of the most popular politicians in the country, had a faction of only two deputies in the previous lower house of parliament.
Macron is considered part of the European establishment. He was economy minister under previous President Francois Hollande and knows France's power elites well. He cannot be called a “non-systemic” politician. However, his populist election campaign without relying on the old parties undoubtedly made Macron far from the most typical president in the history of modern France.
Macronists have every chance of winning more than 400 seats in the National Assembly in the second round. This will be a great success for the young president and will give him all the cards.
However, France is a country of unpredictable political turns. On June 11, more than half of the French eligible to vote did not show up at the polling stations. This is a record figure in the history of the Fifth Republic.
If this trend is repeated in the second round, then the legitimacy of the pro-presidential majority will be dealt a powerful blow. Here it is timely to remember that back in May, 61% of the French did not want Macron to have a majority in parliament. The President has yet to figure out what to do with this reality.
