The Elysée released a statement on August 26th in which the President reported on the conclusions he drew from consultations he had with party leaders. The main purpose of this text was to explain why Lucie Castets was not appointed as Prime Minister and why a government of the NFP (New Popular Front) was not formed. Additionally, the President emphasized that while his party lost the elections, no one had truly won them either. The conditions and consequences of the second round were said to “require” parties to engage in dialogue to form a broad alliance and agree on a candidate to lead it. It seemed as though the President was distancing himself from the idea of dissolving parliament and placing the responsibility for its consequences on the political parties.
While the verb “oblige” is not a dominant term in Emmanuel Macron’s speeches, it is used in situations where the President wants to emphasize the nation’s debt, particularly to war generations. The use of this verb provides insight into his discourse during times of political crisis. Macron urges political parties to “not forget the exceptional circumstances in which their deputies were elected in the second round.” He presents a moral imperative that he believes should guide the parties: to respect the true meaning of the election results, which in his view is not about choosing a program but about blocking the far-right RN (National Rally). Macron specifically addresses the left, noting that while they may have the most seats, they have not (in his opinion) won the programmatic battle. The exclusion of France Unbowed (LFI) from the group of parties that are “obliged” to cooperate raises questions about their future direction.
The phrase used by the President to express this “obligation” ( “this vote obliges them”) echoes his statement on the night of his reelection, where he expressed that the second round vote “obliged” him. By playing with these words, Macron runs the risk of another interpretation of the verb “oblige” appearing: on April 24, 2022, was he not the one who was indebted to the situation? He even acknowledged this on that night: “I am aware that this vote obliges me for the years to come”, promising to repay the trust given to him for a second time by voters who did not initially support him. However, his opponents may feel that the electoral debt has not truly been paid back. This raises questions about the legitimacy and repayment of political debts in the context of the current situation.
Overall, Macron’s use of language and framing of obligations and debts in the political sphere reflect a complex interplay of power dynamics and accountability. By emphasizing the moral imperative for parties to cooperate and form alliances, he is attempting to shape the post-election landscape in a way that aligns with his vision. However, the exclusion of certain parties and the unresolved nature of political debts suggest that tensions and challenges lie ahead in the formation of a new government. The lingering question of who truly holds power and who is indebted to whom underlines the complexity of democratic governance in times of transition and change. Ultimately, the path forward for French politics remains uncertain, with competing visions and interests shaping the negotiations and alliances to come.
