Some wounds never fully heal. However, the passage of time \u2014 and witnessing the decay of the person who caused those wounds \u2014 can often help us put things in perspective. <\/p>\n
It\u2019s been a long time since a precocious Emmanuel Macron<\/a> served as economic advisor and later finance minister under Socialist President Fran\u00e7ois Hollande, who governed France from 2012 until 2017. And since the former head of state felt the sting of betrayal: back in 2016, his prot\u00e9g\u00e9 created a political party without warning, blocking his path to reelection. <\/p>\n Today, many years later, amid the decay of \u201cMacronism,\u201d the cycle is coming full circle.<\/p>\n 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 \u2014 just across from the Tuileries Gardens and the Seine River \u2014 for an interview with EL PA\u00cdS and two other outlets from the Leading European Newspaper Alliance (LENA). <\/p>\n 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 S\u00e9bastien Lecornu<\/a>, who was recently re-appointed by Macron. This was done in exchange for suspending the controversial pension reform<\/a>. <\/p>\n The experiments, the alliances with the left-wing La France Insoumise (\u201cFrance Unbowed\u201d) and attempts at populism are over. Above all, Macronism is finished. Because, in reality \u2014 according to Hollande \u2014 it never existed in the first place. <\/p>\n Question.<\/b> Have the Socialists saved the second Lecornu cabinet? <\/p>\n Answer.<\/b> It was Lecornu who saved himself. The Socialists allowed him to present a budget and get to the end of the debate\u2026 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 \u2014 and it was necessary to do so \u2014 from Macron, by questioning a reform that the head of state was clinging to. <\/p>\n Q.<\/b> Does suspending the reform mean the end of Macronism?<\/p>\n A.<\/b> I don\u2019t really know what \u201cMacronism\u201d is. In reality, it never existed. You can\u2019t reduce a presidential term to a single reform, even if it\u2019s 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\u2026 and [it should have been] accompanied by genuine social dialogue. But this wasn\u2019t done. And that\u2019s why it\u2019s suspended today.<\/p>\n Q.<\/b> You say that you don\u2019t know what Macronism is. But you\u2019ve seen Macron evolve: he started on the left and governed from the right. And now, out of necessity, he\u2019s moving back to the left. How do you explain this trajectory?<\/p>\n A.<\/b> Macron doesn\u2019t have deep convictions or a defined political history. He\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n Q.<\/b> What do you think is his objective?<\/p>\n A.<\/b> He wants to finish his term with honor. And he\u2019s realized that, to achieve this, he must delegate some of his executive power to the prime minister.<\/p>\n Q.<\/b> You say Lecornu is emancipating himself from Macron. But isn\u2019t it still the \u00c9lys\u00e9e Palace that makes the decisions?<\/p>\n A.<\/b> The relationship between the prime minister and the president is a thing of the past. The important thing now is to [confirm] \u2014 in the budget debate \u2014 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\u2019ll see if a consensus text emerges. That\u2019s why uncertainty remains\u2026 not so much about the method, but about the conclusion.<\/p>\n Q.<\/b> Is it realistic to maintain the retirement age at 62, when many European countries are heading toward 67?<\/p>\n A.<\/b> 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n La France Insoumise plays the role of a useful idiot by instilling more fear than the far-right in a portion of the population<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Q.<\/b> The Socialist Party\u2019s 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 \u201cbetrayal.\u201d <\/p>\n A.<\/b> The Socialist Party (PS) is, once again, a governing force, as it was in the past. And it demonstrates that the LFI\u2019s hegemonic strategy has failed. <\/p>\n The PS has managed to suspend an unpopular reform. If [LFI leader] Jean-Luc M\u00e9lenchon<\/a>\u2019s 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\u2019t simply about closing a deal, but about guaranteeing France\u2019s stability in an extremely dangerous international context.<\/p>\n Q.<\/b> Doesn\u2019t suspending the pension reform threaten the country\u2019s financial stability?<\/p>\n A.<\/b> The suspension of the pension reform has a cost, but a limited one: between \u20ac400 and \u20ac500 million in 2026 ($460 to $580 million) and \u20ac1.5 billion ($1.75 billion) in 2027. A definitive abandonment [of the reform] is what would be costly\u2026 not a suspension. Of course, efforts will need to be made, but the [outcome of the] 2027 presidential elections should [determine what happens next]. <\/p>\n Q.<\/b> Is the New Popular Front (NFP) \u2014 the left-wing alliance created to contest the 2024 legislative elections \u2014 now dead? Will there be no joint left-wing lists in the municipal elections in March of 2026? <\/p>\n A.<\/b> 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 \u2014 be it in a city council or via the functioning of the state \u2014 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.<\/p>\n If every unpopular president had to resign, many would have done so\u2026 myself included<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Q.<\/b> Some \u2014 even those who were once Macron allies, like \u00c9douard Philippe, his former prime minister \u2014 have called for the president\u2019s resignation. What do you think about this?<\/p>\n A.<\/b> I was surprised, especially [when the comments came] from a former prime minister appointed by Macron. [And Philippe] himself is a presidential candidate. It\u2019s 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\u2026 myself included.<\/p>\n Q.<\/b> So, for you, it\u2019s not an option?<\/p>\n A.<\/b> No. That would lead to a snap presidential election within 35 days. That\u2019s 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]. <\/p>\n Q.<\/b> What\u2019s your personal opinion of Prime Minister Lecornu?<\/p>\n A.<\/b> He\u2019s a skilled man. He\u2019s aware of the crisis that we\u2019re going through and concerned with finding a way out. He has freed himself from Macron\u2019s tutelage. He was one of his most loyal supporters, but he has been forced to be unfaithful to survive politically.<\/p>\n Q.<\/b> Can this government make it to the end of its five-year term?<\/p>\n A.<\/b> It depends on [the prime minister]. Just as it was up to Lecornu to avoid censure with a gesture, it\u2019s now up to the [cabinet] to make the necessary commitments, particularly regarding the taxation of large fortunes and [addressing the population\u2019s loss of] purchasing power.<\/p>\n Q.<\/b> What if the far-right comes to power?<\/p>\n A.<\/b> It would be a huge shock. Europe and the markets should be worried. [The far-right\u2019s] proposals don\u2019t prepare the country to clean up its accounts. On the other hand, a left-wing or center-left government has already demonstrated \u2014 with [prime minister] Lionel Jospin (1997-2002), or with me \u2014 that it knows how to balance public finances. The left has always done its duty. It\u2019s the right, paradoxically, that lives on credit. Macron\u2019s governments are the ones that have deepened the deficits. Of course, there was Covid-19 and the war in Ukraine\u2026 but those crises didn\u2019t just affect France.<\/p>\n Q.<\/b> Is a single center-right or center-left candidate for the 2027 presidential election the only way to defeat the far-right?<\/p>\n A.<\/b> I don\u2019t 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 \u00c9douard Philippe. <\/p>\n A presidential election isn\u2019t just a game of alliances. A personality prevails \u2014 whether from the right or the left \u2014 when they manage to appear capable of offering a solution to the country. Today, such a figure still hasn\u2019t appeared. <\/p>\n Q.<\/b> On the Socialist side, could it be Rapha\u00ebl Glucksmann, who currently serves as a member of the European Parliament?<\/p>\n A.<\/b> He\u2019s 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 \u2014 with [First Secretary] Olivier Faure \u2014 and myself. That work hasn\u2019t yet begun.<\/p>\n Q.<\/b> And what will your role be in that work?<\/p>\n A.<\/b> To bring everyone [together]. If I were to say \u201cI\u2019m a candidate\u201d today, it would complicate things. They would accuse me of wanting to bring them together to lock them all away! <\/p>\n Q.<\/b> Far-right leader Marine Le Pen\u2019s appeal<\/a> 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. <\/p>\n A.<\/b> No. If she can\u2019t, she already has her successor lined up: Jordan Bardella<\/a>. Polls show he\u2019d 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\u2019t change anything regarding political pluralism.<\/p>\n\n
\n