The month that within soon may be described with an uncanny "next", the creation of general De Gaulle will face its greatest, most defining upset since the time the general himself resurrected the Bonapartist system of a direct, national poll in his momentous struggle against Monsieur Mitterrand. That stunning struggle which lasted well beyond a single day but came - beyond assuring both men's place in the national curriculum - to complete a political culture, a hybrid of the American presidency and Anglo-Saxon parliamentary rule, which has since been the pulsating heart of the Fifth Republic, itself surpassing the Third as the longest-lived polity since the Bourbons in a mere eleven years.
But then, if there is an uncanny reason for doubts about such a virtuously unpunctuated "end" to millennia of upheaval and radicalism that has defined French history it can easiest be narrowed to the current polling statistics, suggesting the downfall of the legacy of both men, of the political vehicles of French Socialism and Le Gaullisme, of the France we thought we knew politically. Indeed, if the figures of today are to be believed, the struggle for the Elysée Palace for the next five years stands - as they have, bar the infamous year 2002 - not between Socialist and Gaullist candidates, who look likely to be thrown out in a stiff reenactment of the Austrian upset of the last year, with the world's third largest (self-acknowledged) nuclear arsenal in the pot, along with a permanent membership and veto in an increasingly hibernated United Nations Security Council.
Long gone, from the Elysée and shortly into the soil... now, after decades, fit for burial?
The untypical - and, I have to say, desirable - end of major party politics that have come to define the contest of the spring, with the unpopularity of past Socialist and Gaullist (whatever the acronym of their hosts) administrations blowing home with a chilling rain of low digits. For it looks, partly in light of Mr. Bayrou's brave-hearted defection, as if the inevitable competition of May 7 will feature Emmanuel Macron, maverick ex-Socialist, darling of "alternative" leftists and rightists alike and increasing clot who despise both labels contre Marine Le Pen, Dauphine of the old devil of the nativist right, Jean-Marie.
And while Mme Le Pen has made - as well as endured - a real effort to present a different face than that of the old devil, a riffraff of post-war ultranationalists, Third Positionists and identitaire movements mashed up with post-Poujade Poujadistes and Catholic conservatives, she remains villified by the bulk of an electorate which only fifteen years past rejected her party label in a historic, 82-18 upset. By the estimates, Macron as an alternative - arguably the strongest - would see this upset reduced to approximately three-to-five. Arguably a stunning victory for democracy and the liberal order. But, again for those who will remember the year of 2002 and its Napoleonic tally, a striking reduction in enthusiasm.
And because Macron seems to greet history with a hand more safe, more sensible, more pragmatic and (ironically) appealing to the continuity of the existing framework, he precisely represents vivid and very real uncertainty. And it is this uncertainty which, appealing to a growing portion of electorates throughout the Western world - the world of Western democracy now turned against itself to a degree not seen on this side of its most contentious trials, unites the forces rallied against it. Macron, while undoubtedly an optimist, a globalist, a disciple and servant of the current order and its giants, may yet be distinguished as a "strong man of history" of which France and French republics has spawned its handful, all of which have been known to add a number of order to its incarnations set to take its next step, as proposed by perennial-to-be candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon. If five, why not a sixth?
For the darling now expected to best the devil is nothing if not a man of contrasts; a leftist minister, a reformer and radical - yet with the blazing, glaring face of a self-made man, a man of no loyalties, no party, a maverick connected solely to the hearts and minds of his audience, whose commitment he commands as a most skilful conductor. A servant of the Socialist party with credentials of the Hollande government but also an uncanny (for those complaining about the rationale of President Trump in selecting his cabinet) self-portrait of a vitalising outsider with a resume pierced by the glittering punch-clocks of Goldman Sachs.
Edging him to left and right, dogged by the sins of affiliation and oblivion - in Hamon's case - and of yesterday of vain avarice - in Fillon's - there was the prospect of a genuine dialectic; the drastic slashing of public expenditures and public employees against the taxation of robots and implementation of a guaranteed minimum income, including to the hibernated and badly investment-needy overseas territories of Reunion and elsewhere. The near-utopian radicalism of the pre-Mitterrand left, fitted and concerned for the conditions of tomorrow against an unusual mixture of liberalisme (here, just as in its revolutionary cousin, an invective) bordering Thatcherism, reminiscient rather of Poincaré and his likes than the long-overdue Gaullist project. From these drastic calls of left and the right, a genuine path of progress could sordidly needed could have emerged, with audacity and idealism as its much-needed platform.
Rather, the young David called to challenge the brutish ogre (or Saint Jeanne, if you prefer) seems more reminiscient of the American president in this refusal to play politics as dialectical struggle of ideas and reform, substituting a call, if not a shriek, for revitalization - with a palingenetic quality - over politics, Gaullism and Socialism, classes, left and right, even calling for the filling of a void left by the decline of the Bourbons and its lightweight successor of Bonapartism, and its later incarnation, the collapsed "imperial" presidency of the Fifth republic, washed out in a tide of meekness, corruption and stale parties reminding only of the consumed times and blue skies of earlier times. Echoing the visionary bluntness of the Clinton campaign - to which I could extend reluctant support - the enthusiasm on which the En Marché movement is built holds a humiliating scarcity of goods, and extends promises deliberately constructed on the numbing comfort of opacity and the blazing zeal of change, pitting the forces of good, progress and hope against a petrified establishment.
And while Mme Le Pen has made - as well as endured - a real effort to present a different face than that of the old devil, a riffraff of post-war ultranationalists, Third Positionists and identitaire movements mashed up with post-Poujade Poujadistes and Catholic conservatives, she remains villified by the bulk of an electorate which only fifteen years past rejected her party label in a historic, 82-18 upset. By the estimates, Macron as an alternative - arguably the strongest - would see this upset reduced to approximately three-to-five. Arguably a stunning victory for democracy and the liberal order. But, again for those who will remember the year of 2002 and its Napoleonic tally, a striking reduction in enthusiasm.
The minority report...
And because Macron seems to greet history with a hand more safe, more sensible, more pragmatic and (ironically) appealing to the continuity of the existing framework, he precisely represents vivid and very real uncertainty. And it is this uncertainty which, appealing to a growing portion of electorates throughout the Western world - the world of Western democracy now turned against itself to a degree not seen on this side of its most contentious trials, unites the forces rallied against it. Macron, while undoubtedly an optimist, a globalist, a disciple and servant of the current order and its giants, may yet be distinguished as a "strong man of history" of which France and French republics has spawned its handful, all of which have been known to add a number of order to its incarnations set to take its next step, as proposed by perennial-to-be candidate Jean-Luc Melenchon. If five, why not a sixth?
Champion of the dispossessed, the outsiders, those desiring to overturn the current order... gazing towards a future we can infer only through its reflection. Learn to determine the visions of your forbearers, and to practice to reflect before you select.
For the darling now expected to best the devil is nothing if not a man of contrasts; a leftist minister, a reformer and radical - yet with the blazing, glaring face of a self-made man, a man of no loyalties, no party, a maverick connected solely to the hearts and minds of his audience, whose commitment he commands as a most skilful conductor. A servant of the Socialist party with credentials of the Hollande government but also an uncanny (for those complaining about the rationale of President Trump in selecting his cabinet) self-portrait of a vitalising outsider with a resume pierced by the glittering punch-clocks of Goldman Sachs.
Edging him to left and right, dogged by the sins of affiliation and oblivion - in Hamon's case - and of yesterday of vain avarice - in Fillon's - there was the prospect of a genuine dialectic; the drastic slashing of public expenditures and public employees against the taxation of robots and implementation of a guaranteed minimum income, including to the hibernated and badly investment-needy overseas territories of Reunion and elsewhere. The near-utopian radicalism of the pre-Mitterrand left, fitted and concerned for the conditions of tomorrow against an unusual mixture of liberalisme (here, just as in its revolutionary cousin, an invective) bordering Thatcherism, reminiscient rather of Poincaré and his likes than the long-overdue Gaullist project. From these drastic calls of left and the right, a genuine path of progress could sordidly needed could have emerged, with audacity and idealism as its much-needed platform.
Rather, the young David called to challenge the brutish ogre (or Saint Jeanne, if you prefer) seems more reminiscient of the American president in this refusal to play politics as dialectical struggle of ideas and reform, substituting a call, if not a shriek, for revitalization - with a palingenetic quality - over politics, Gaullism and Socialism, classes, left and right, even calling for the filling of a void left by the decline of the Bourbons and its lightweight successor of Bonapartism, and its later incarnation, the collapsed "imperial" presidency of the Fifth republic, washed out in a tide of meekness, corruption and stale parties reminding only of the consumed times and blue skies of earlier times. Echoing the visionary bluntness of the Clinton campaign - to which I could extend reluctant support - the enthusiasm on which the En Marché movement is built holds a humiliating scarcity of goods, and extends promises deliberately constructed on the numbing comfort of opacity and the blazing zeal of change, pitting the forces of good, progress and hope against a petrified establishment.
A moment to be remembered... but her ambitions may yet burn her. More often than we like to admit, the Cauchons and Bayrous of the day remake the order of tomorrow.
Spelling out a simple but dramatic truth... in the last polls, Hamon has surrendered his shameful fourth place for Melenchon's movement La France Insoumise.
Given this dialectic of personality rather than program, there is a bitter echo of the presidential contest of last November. As for the outcome, as stated, it will rather prove an echo rather of the Austrian presidential poll of December, with the clear message of traditional standard-bearers defeated and humiliated by strong personalities - of different kinds - and surging forces among both left and right (whatever these labels mean). Macron will be upheld not foremost as a champion of something new, but a defender and amplifier of a conditional order against the hordes threatening its very groundwork. And thus, there may be every reason to question his rise as a different facet of the unprecedented and groundshaking - now it has to be said - progress of the Front of the old, seemingly vanquished Diable de la Republique. This new political order, built on negatives and strongmen (and at a long last -women) more than before jostling for position, now against a backdrop of calamity should the alternative emerge as victorious is saddening regardless of outcomes, and promises for nothing if not surprises. Against this, there is the case for a renewed streak of proud French traditions of the intellect and dynamics of ideas, which will hopefully provide new mindsets of left and right, and new dimensions and divisions, of which I can only sordidly miss that of the climate, which - subsequent to the Paris agreement - seems to have faced a spectacular backlash.
Given the recent supposed upset of populists and enemies of European integration in the Netherlands there has been made a case for optimism, but this is a comparison without appropriate pedigree, which foregoes the success of Mr. Wilders' party and the foreseeable conclusion that no coalition under his leadership could likely emerge. Given the proposed riddle of the Dutch state and its perceived foundation on joyous carefreeness and Enlightenment values, I have only one thing to say. The Netherlands of my migrant forefathers arose from the broken shackles of Habsburg imperialism and monarchical corruption, and flourished under the auspices of then-audacious republicanism, as well as an unprecedented and unchallenged freedom of press outside Britain and Sweden, the bastions of parliamentary rule. If France - joined in the future mayhaps by its southron neighbour - has thrown off its shackles of the Bourbons and Bonapartists, and will preferably keep them off should Macron (preferably, and with greater likelihood) emerge along the steps to the Elysée the following May, there is a case to strike a blow against the authority on which its stones were laid in thought as well as practice. The oft-spoken liberal creed of a collection of Dutch states was founded on republican values, and if there is a case for a call to restoration, it is also high time to reaffirm that fact by restoring the stewardship of state to the proud Dutch people and its Staten-Generaal - the first word compound, in its French translation Etats-Generaux, here shamefully if understandably transmuted - to be held close in mind by the assembly which will not only serve, but safeguards the future of the next French president and the French state, whichever its form and numeral.
