The French political landscape is currently witnessing the emergence of a new form of governance, symbolized by the term “Coalitation.” This term, a blend of “coalition” and “cohabitation,” refers to the new political partnership between centrist President Emmanuel Macron and right-wing Prime Minister Michel Barnier. This novel arrangement raises questions about its motivations and whether it can endure the challenges of France’s current political context.
Key Implications
This new form of governance, as described by sources from the Élysée and various French media analyses, suggests several key implications:
Surpassing Traditional Cohabitation: Traditionally, when elections result in the defeat of the ruling majority, the president appoints a prime minister from the victorious opposition party, leading to cohabitation. However, while Macron lost the recent elections, he did not appoint a prime minister from his political camp, although he retains significant representation in the new government through a large number of ministers. This creates a situation combining both coalition and cohabitation elements. Unlike previous cohabitation experiences, Macron will represent France alone at European Council meetings, unlike the era of Jacques Chirac and Lionel Jospin, when both attended such meetings together.
An Imbalanced Alliance: Some within France, including former President Nicolas Sarkozy, have called for a centrist-right alliance for nearly two years. However, Barnier’s appointment does not reflect a balanced coalition, as his nomination comes more from Macron than from his own party, “Les Républicains” (LR), which has only 47 deputies in parliament after finishing fourth in the recent elections. Barnier’s task is to build broad alliances, potentially including some left-wing parties, to pass legislation and avoid no-confidence votes. This differs from Germany’s coalition model, where the party with the most seats forms the government after lengthy negotiations. In contrast, Barnier will need to find majorities for each legislative issue, negotiating with parties not represented in the government.
Focus on Mutual Compromises: Macron prefers to describe the current situation as “demanding coexistence” (Coexistence Exigeante) rather than “cohabitation,” emphasizing potential compromises over ideological differences. Barnier, who experienced cohabitation from 1993 to 1995 as Environment Minister under right-wing Prime Minister Édouard Balladur during the socialist presidency of François Mitterrand, considers the current situation distinct from that period.
Reassuring Right-Wing Supporters: On September 12, 2024, Macron promised a “new era” based on shared responsibilities with Barnier, marking a departure from his previous seven years of “hyper-presidential” governance. This pledge is aimed at reassuring right-wing supporters who do not want Barnier to be merely a collaborator, a term Sarkozy previously used for his prime minister François Fillon, which Fillon found offensive. Right-wing supporters expect Barnier to act as an independent prime minister, allowing them to regain influence and key ministerial positions after 12 years in opposition.
A New Power-Sharing Arrangement: Some sources close to the Élysée suggest that Macron has expressed a desire to transition into a more ceremonial presidential role, leaving the governance to the prime minister. To reinforce this perception of change, the French newspaper Le Monde reported on September 14, 2024, that Élysée Secretary-General Alexis Kohler instructed ministers and senior officials to communicate only with the Prime Minister’s office at Matignon, canceling joint ministerial meetings at the Élysée and withdrawing shared advisers. Some sources suggest that Macron will focus on international affairs, leaving domestic policy decisions to Barnier.
Drivers Behind This New Arrangement
Several key political factors have contributed to the rise of this new governance model:
Lack of a Parliamentary Majority: Following the legislative elections that concluded on July 7, 2024, Macron’s “Renaissance” party lost its absolute majority in parliament. With the French political scene divided among three main political forces—the leftist bloc, the centrist bloc, and the far-right—none of which holds an outright majority, Macron had no choice but to seek political partners to form a coalition that could offer stability until the end of his term, or at least until the constitutionally mandated one-year period before dissolving parliament again.
Ideological Divide Between Macron and the Left: Despite his electoral loss, Macron sought to avoid a left-wing government that would dismantle his achievements, such as pension reform and immigration law. This is exactly what the newly formed left-wing bloc, led by Jean-Luc Mélenchon, promised to do, declaring they would implement their entire program without compromise. Former socialist President François Hollande also warned that a left-wing prime minister would not continue Macron’s right-leaning policies. The ideological closeness between Macron and the right, combined with the left’s refusal to cooperate with Macron, made appointing a left-wing government unviable. The appointment of Barnier, rather than the left’s candidate, Elisabeth Borne, led leftist leaders to claim that the election had been stolen and that Macron was deepening France’s political crisis.
Avoiding Parliamentary Censures: According to sources close to Macron, appointing Barnier was the only way to avoid the government collapsing during its first parliamentary session. Macron feared being blamed for repeated governmental failures, as he is responsible for appointing prime ministers, making him potentially the sole figure held accountable by the public for any ensuing chaos.
A Shift in Presidential Leadership Style: Macron has pledged to change his leadership style, transitioning away from his previously hyper-presidential approach. Analysts suggest that Macron has a vested interest in stepping back, as there is little ideological difference between him and Barnier. Additionally, Macron will still maintain significant influence within the government, particularly in key ministries like Foreign Affairs and Defense. This arrangement benefits both figures, as Barnier needs to appear independent while Macron seeks to demonstrate that he has understood the French people’s desire for change, which led to his electoral defeat. If Barnier fails, Macron will avoid taking the blame. A poll published by Le Figaro on September 12, 2024, showed that 66% of French citizens want the prime minister, not the president, to govern in the coming months.
Securing Macron’s Presidency: Some political commentators suggest that Macron has come to accept the need to share power, at least temporarily, to ensure his survival until the end of his term. A prolonged governance crisis, especially if early elections are called, could fuel calls for Macron’s resignation as the only untested solution to the political impasse.
In fact, this possibility began to surface on July 4, 2024, when Mélenchon called for Macron’s resignation if he failed to secure a majority in the early elections. There was also a move by far-left deputies to invoke Article 68 of the Constitution to begin impeachment proceedings against Macron, even though they knew this attempt would fail. Moreover, Macron’s ally, Édouard Philippe, unexpectedly announced his candidacy for the next presidential election, which many interpreted as a sign that Macron’s current term may not end smoothly. Given all these factors, Macron has realized that stepping back from the political spotlight, even partially, is crucial to maintaining his presidency until 2027.
Ongoing Challenges
Despite the aim of this arrangement being to achieve political stability, it does not come without challenges:
1. Balancing various interests in Parliament:
The continuation of this government is expected to be fraught with risks. It relies on the support of 47 deputies from the right-wing Republican Party and 166 deputies from the former Macronist majority (with an absolute majority in the French parliament being 289). Simultaneously, it faces strict scrutiny from 142 deputies of the far-right National Rally party and 193 deputies from the Left Front. Thus, the survival of this government hinges on preventing the unification of votes between the left and the far-right.
The Prime Minister, known as a high-level negotiator, will face a strong challenge in preventing the opposition from the Socialist Party and environmentalists by offering them convincing commitments. This would aim to separate their votes from the strong third faction in the Left Front, which is the “Unsubmissive France” party.
2. Withstanding pressure from the far-right:
Although the second round of the legislative elections was carried out under the banner of establishing a “Republican Front” to prevent the far-right from seizing power in France, after it came first in the initial round, this far-right—embodied by Marine Le Pen’s National Rally—has regained control over the political landscape. It now holds sway over the future of the government, playing the role of arbiter or overseer, especially since it was Le Pen’s party that enabled Barnier’s appointment as prime minister by announcing that it would not withdraw confidence from him.
This party, whose popularity is growing, could undermine the image of this coalition as being a form of “collusion among elites,” disconnected from the concerns of ordinary French citizens and the working class. This may lead to more extreme debates, making consensual governance more challenging.
3. Lack of alignment with Macron’s vision:
Although Macron and Barnier share the same vision regarding Europe and the necessity for France to be a strong leader within the European Union, European challenges—such as the migration crisis and the war in Ukraine—may exacerbate internal tensions within this coalition. This is especially true if Barnier feels compelled to adopt stricter stances on immigration to satisfy his right-wing party, whose de facto leader, Laurent Wauquiez, aims to run for the 2027 presidential elections. Wauquiez does not want to leave immigration as an electoral tool in the hands of Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-right.
As a result, Barnier prioritizing his party’s agenda over Macron’s political vision could become a key factor in unraveling the coalition. Some interpretations suggest that the right has been dissatisfied with Macron’s strategy of encroaching on the right’s electorate since 2017 and that 2024 might be the time for the right to reclaim this base now that it is in government. Moreover, the right may seek to erode Macron’s own support base as the Macron era nears its end.
4. Economic and social challenges:
Most analyses predict that Barnier’s government will pass the vote of confidence in the National Assembly upon its announcement, as it won’t face opposition from the far-right. However, its crucial test will come with passing the 2025 budget, which is expected to reduce the public deficit from 5.5% to below 3% in line with European Union requirements. Political forces are awaiting Barnier’s approach to this. The left supports raising taxes on the wealthy and preserving public spending, while Macron favors the opposite. Meanwhile, Le Pen advocates for redirecting public spending to prioritize “national interests,” thus reducing aid to immigrants.
Observers believe that if Barnier’s government wants to stay in power, it will need additional support either from the far-right or the Left Front.
5. The influence of Gabriel Attal’s ambitions:
Former Prime Minister Gabriel Attal is one of the most influential and popular figures within the “Renaissance” party. He leads the Macronist bloc in parliament and aspires to lead the party itself. Attal was not pleased with Macron’s decision to dissolve the National Assembly after the European elections in June 2024, yet he still led the electoral campaign, achieving results above expectations in the early elections. Attal also supported the appointment of a left-wing prime minister.
Attal has his own political ambitions, aiming to be the “Renaissance” party’s candidate in the 2027 presidential elections, particularly since Macron is not eligible to run for a third term. If Attal disagrees with Barnier’s policies or feels that they favor the right-wing faction at the expense of his future prospects, he could threaten the continuation of the coalition between Macron and Barnier by adopting more independent positions. This could create internal tension and complicate decision-making within the government. Attal knows that Macron will need him if early elections are held again next year.
Conclusion:
The “coalition” between Macron and Barnier, despite its fragility, represents an attempt to overcome the current political crisis in France. The chances of its success depend on Macron and Barnier’s ability to align on a unified vision and to find temporary compromises with other political forces on a case-by-case basis. The collapse of this experiment, before a year passes since the dissolution of the National Assembly in June 2024, could lead to a shift from a political crisis to a systemic crisis in France. Questions continue to swirl about Macron’s true intentions behind adopting this formula: Is it merely a way to buy time until next June to call for new early elections? Or has he finally become convinced of the need for genuine change in the way he governs?
