Some wounds never fully heal. However, the passage of time — and witnessing the decay of the person who caused those wounds — can often help us put things in perspective.
It’s been a long time since a precocious Emmanuel Macron served as economic advisor and later finance minister under Socialist President François Hollande, who governed France from 2012 until 2017. And since the former head of state felt the sting of betrayal: back in 2016, his protégé created a political party without warning, blocking his path to reelection.
Today, many years later, amid the decay of “Macronism,” the cycle is coming full circle.
Hollande, 70, remains a heavyweight in the social-democratic world. The former president of the French Republic arrives at his office on Rue de Rivoli — just across from the Tuileries Gardens and the Seine River — for an interview with EL PAÍS and two other outlets from the Leading European Newspaper Alliance (LENA).
The man who governed France for half a decade is happy. He believes that the Socialist Party made the right decision by agreeing not to support a no-confidence motion against Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu, who was recently re-appointed by Macron. This was done in exchange for suspending the controversial pension reform.
The experiments, the alliances with the left-wing La France Insoumise (“France Unbowed”) and attempts at populism are over. Above all, Macronism is finished. Because, in reality — according to Hollande — it never existed in the first place.
Question. Have the Socialists saved the second Lecornu cabinet?
Answer. It was Lecornu who saved himself. The Socialists allowed him to present a budget and get to the end of the debate… but he made the decisive gesture by suspending the pension reform. Not only did the Socialists expect this, but so did the CFDT (the main French labor union) and all social organizations. Even beyond the left, a large part of public opinion expected it. Lecornu has emancipated himself — and it was necessary to do so — from Macron, by questioning a reform that the head of state was clinging to.
Q. Does suspending the reform mean the end of Macronism?
A. I don’t really know what “Macronism” is. In reality, it never existed. You can’t reduce a presidential term to a single reform, even if it’s a pension overhaul. [This reform] should have been framed within a global reflection on labor; [it should have aimed at bolstering] equality among French people [and taking into account] their level of hard work… and [it should have been] accompanied by genuine social dialogue. But this wasn’t done. And that’s why it’s suspended today.
Q. You say that you don’t know what Macronism is. But you’ve seen Macron evolve: he started on the left and governed from the right. And now, out of necessity, he’s moving back to the left. How do you explain this trajectory?
A. Macron doesn’t have deep convictions or a defined political history. He’s never led a party or held a local office that would root him in a territory. He evolves according to circumstances. At first, he was an advisor in a center-left government, then a reformist minister, then a social-liberal candidate in 2017, before becoming a neoliberal, authoritarian and right-wing president. Some see pragmatism in this. I see a drift caused by his lack of an ideological backbone.
Q. What do you think is his objective?
A. He wants to finish his term with honor. And he’s realized that, to achieve this, he must delegate some of his executive power to the prime minister.
Q. You say Lecornu is emancipating himself from Macron. But isn’t it still the Élysée Palace that makes the decisions?
A. The relationship between the prime minister and the president is a thing of the past. The important thing now is to [confirm] — in the budget debate — whether the government will be able to find a compromise that will last. Lecornu promised not to resort to Article 49.3 (which allows government initiatives to be approved by decree), [emphasizing] that the executive branch proposes [legislation], while the National Assembly deliberates and votes. We’ll see if a consensus text emerges. That’s why uncertainty remains… not so much about the method, but about the conclusion.
Q. Is it realistic to maintain the retirement age at 62, when many European countries are heading toward 67?
A. France has a more balanced demographic [makeup] than Italy or Spain, where populations are aging more rapidly. And, above all, in most European countries, it’s not the governments who set the rules, but the social partners. That dialogue was lacking [in France]. There will, of course, be a new reform, perhaps before 2027. I think everyone is aware that, as the aging process continues and resources are limited, solutions must be found.
La France Insoumise plays the role of a useful idiot by instilling more fear than the far-right in a portion of the population
Q. The Socialist Party’s refusal to vote on the no-confidence motion has provoked the ire of its former partner, La France Insoumise (LFI). This party now accuses yours of “betrayal.”
A. The Socialist Party (PS) is, once again, a governing force, as it was in the past. And it demonstrates that the LFI’s hegemonic strategy has failed.
The PS has managed to suspend an unpopular reform. If [LFI leader] Jean-Luc Mélenchon’s line had prevailed, the no-confidence motion would have brought down the government and erased this victory [for the welfare state]. We worked out this compromise to give the country a budget and offer stability to the government. It wasn’t simply about closing a deal, but about guaranteeing France’s stability in an extremely dangerous international context.
Q. Doesn’t suspending the pension reform threaten the country’s financial stability?
A. The suspension of the pension reform has a cost, but a limited one: between €400 and €500 million in 2026 ($460 to $580 million) and €1.5 billion ($1.75 billion) in 2027. A definitive abandonment [of the reform] is what would be costly… not a suspension. Of course, efforts will need to be made, but the [outcome of the] 2027 presidential elections should [determine what happens next].
Q. Is the New Popular Front (NFP) — the left-wing alliance created to contest the 2024 legislative elections — now dead? Will there be no joint left-wing lists in the municipal elections in March of 2026?
A. The NFP was a temporary alliance, without a governing project. The proof is that, after the legislative elections, the LFI never wanted to participate in a left-wing government. There will be no joint lists with them in the municipal elections. Firstly, for ideological reasons. In recent years, the LFI has adopted positions that make coexistence impossible — be it in a city council or via the functioning of the state — should it come to power. The LFI plays the role of a useful idiot in the political game by instilling more fear than the far-right in a portion of the population.
If every unpopular president had to resign, many would have done so… myself included
Q. Some — even those who were once Macron allies, like Édouard Philippe, his former prime minister — have called for the president’s resignation. What do you think about this?
A. I was surprised, especially [when the comments came] from a former prime minister appointed by Macron. [And Philippe] himself is a presidential candidate. It’s doubly incomprehensible, due to a lack of solidarity and a lack of respect for institutions. If every unpopular president had to resign, many would have… myself included.
Q. So, for you, it’s not an option?
A. No. That would lead to a snap presidential election within 35 days. That’s too little time. We need a long campaign, allowing for serious debate on the big issues. Not an improvised election, like the one that followed the dissolution [of the National Assembly in 2024].
Q. What’s your personal opinion of Prime Minister Lecornu?
A. He’s a skilled man. He’s aware of the crisis that we’re going through and concerned with finding a way out. He has freed himself from Macron’s tutelage. He was one of his most loyal supporters, but he has been forced to be unfaithful to survive politically.
Q. Can this government make it to the end of its five-year term?
A. It depends on [the prime minister]. Just as it was up to Lecornu to avoid censure with a gesture, it’s now up to the [cabinet] to make the necessary commitments, particularly regarding the taxation of large fortunes and [addressing the population’s loss of] purchasing power.
Q. What if the far-right comes to power?
A. It would be a huge shock. Europe and the markets should be worried. [The far-right’s] proposals don’t prepare the country to clean up its accounts. On the other hand, a left-wing or center-left government has already demonstrated — with [prime minister] Lionel Jospin (1997-2002), or with me — that it knows how to balance public finances. The left has always done its duty. It’s the right, paradoxically, that lives on credit. Macron’s governments are the ones that have deepened the deficits. Of course, there was Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine… but those crises didn’t just affect France.
Q. Is a single center-right or center-left candidate for the 2027 presidential election the only way to defeat the far-right?
A. I don’t believe in a single candidate. The differences are too profound: on the left, between the LFI and the PS; and, on the right, between, for example, [conservative former Interior Minister] Bruno Retailleau and a candidate like Édouard Philippe.
A presidential election isn’t just a game of alliances. A personality prevails — whether from the right or the left — when they manage to appear capable of offering a solution to the country. Today, such a figure still hasn’t appeared.
Q. On the Socialist side, could it be Raphaël Glucksmann, who currently serves as a member of the European Parliament?
A. He’s one of the possible candidates. So is [my former prime minister] Bernard Cazeneuve and others. But first, to have a center-left candidate, everyone must be united: Glucksmann, Cazeneuve, the Socialist Party — with [First Secretary] Olivier Faure — and myself. That work hasn’t yet begun.
Q. And what will your role be in that work?
A. To bring everyone [together]. If I were to say “I’m a candidate” today, it would complicate things. They would accuse me of wanting to bring them together to lock them all away!
Q. Far-right leader Marine Le Pen’s appeal was recently rejected. She and other members of the National Rally are accused of embezzling public funds. If her conviction is ultimately upheld, would it be an anomaly if she were unable to run in the 2027 presidential elections? She was a candidate for the presidency in 2012, 2017 and 2022.
A. No. If she can’t, she already has her successor lined up: Jordan Bardella. Polls show he’d be just as competitive as her, if not more so. He has more ties to the business community than Le Pen. So, this trial doesn’t change anything regarding political pluralism.
Q. Former President Nicolas Sarkozy, your predecessor, who governed from 2007 until 2012, has declared that the National Rally is now part of the “republican arc”…
A. He’s opened the floodgates with a fallacious argument. The National Rally doesn’t become [a mainstream party] just because it has voters. The republican arc is about respect for common values. And, [despite voter preferences, the far-right] goes against those values.
Q. Sarkozy will be going to prison in a few days, after being convicted of criminal conspiracy. Will you visit him?
A. He has appealed his conviction. If the courts have decided to [imprison him as he awaits trial], this must be respected… even if it’s painful, both for him and for the French people. Seeing a former president imprisoned adds further darkness to the political landscape and [increases] distrust of institutions. It’s a blow to France’s image.
Q. He accuses the courts of persecution.
A. For a long time, the French justice system wasn’t completely independent. Today, it fully is. And it is required to be unbending with criminals and delinquents. If it weren’t so with political leaders, what would people say? Therefore, we must accept that [the judicial system] is rigorous with everyone, without distinction.
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition