Last
night’s political talk show on France
Televisions, the French pubic sector TV network, was a long awaited
opportunity to find out more about Emmanuel Macron, his personality and his
political programme. After Marine le Pen and François Fillon, Macron was taken
through his paces and confronted for more than two hours with questions about his
views on foreign policy, his economic programme, and above all, how he would deal
with two of the most corrosive issues in French society, unemployment and globalisation.
Macron
speaks fast and at times impetuously. An irritating little grin occasionally appears
on his lips when he knows that he has scored a debating point, hinting at a sense
of superiority, often noticed in young, high-flying French officials in whose mould
he has been cast. Towards the end of the programme, asked exactly when he had
decided to stand for President, both his words and his expression conveyed
sincerity. The overall impression was of a clever and ambitious young man with
a mission. French voters will now have a clearer idea of whether they wish to
entrust him with that mission on May 7.
On the
substantive issues, Macron’s foreign policy views, particularly on Syria, were
not very different from France’s well-rehearsed positions: military intervention
only under a UN mandate, followed by discussions “with all parties” to eject Bashar
al-Assad, bring about regime change and fight Islamic State. All this of course
has been overshadowed by the events reported this morning, but French
presidential elections are not decided on foreign policy issues anyway. His macro-economic programme, on which he was
closely questioned by an economic journalist, quickly became a battle about technicalities
and figures that generated far more heat than light. He did not come off well
in a short discussion with an articulate history teacher who criticised him for
describing, a few weeks ago, the French colonisation of Algeria as a “crime
against humanity”. The exchange highlighted the fact, 60 years after the events,
that the war in Algeria and its aftermath are still very much a fault line in French
society.
However, on
unemployment and globalisation, elements of his thinking became clearer and led
me to conclude that if he were to be elected President on May 7, official
policy on both would shift quite significantly.
Confronted
with a militant trade unionist who took him to task for failing to support employees
of a Whirlpool plant about to be moved to Poland, Macron retorted that it was pure
demagogy for politicians to stand up on the back of a lorry and promise that
the plant would be saved. It will not have escaped his listeners that François
Hollande and his ministers did just that when Arcelor-Mittal announced the closure
of a blast furnace in Lorraine a few years ago. The plant was subsequently closed and its
employees were understandably bitter. Paraphrasing the Schumpeterian maxim of
creative destruction, Macron went on to say that while it was legitimate for
the French government to demand that Whirlpool pay back state and local authority
subsidies, ultimately it was not jobs but individuals who should be
protected, particularly through re-training. In a discussion with a cab driver
using the Uber app, complaining that he works long hours for low pay, Macron pointed out that there are many others in France, like small farmers, greengrocers and plumbers
who also work long hours for low pay but that Uber drivers are better off having
a job than having none.
To my
knowledge, no politician has made these points so clearly before. The wider issue
here of course is the impact on France of what has come to be known as the gig
economy, of the “zero hours” contracts in the U.K or “minijobs” in Germany. Those
in France who denounce these kinds of jobs fail to mention that they have made
a big contribution to lowering unemployment. Conversely, those who are quick to
point out that French unemployment is much higher than that of the U.K and
Germany fail to mention that it is largely due to a much more flexible labour market
than France has been willing to countenance so far. Macron clearly wants to
persuade the French to change their attitudes and embrace more flexibility. Of
course, France being France, it is unlikely to adopt the free-for-all of its
neighbours and will always insist on the need for regulation and protection. But
when all is said and done, Macron’s stance is a welcome departure from the fossilised,
all or nothing, positions that have dominated this debate in France for too
long. The Barcelona v. Uber case currently before the European Court of Justice
should help to clarify, later this year, whether Uber can be considered simply
as a digital platform, as it claims, or a transport company, subject to labour legislation
on employees, as claimed by its detractors. Unsurprisingly, France is in the
latter camp.
The other
interesting highlight was the final debate between Macron and François Fillon’s
right-hand man, Senator Bruno Retailleau. Dressed up as a criticism of Macron’s
ministerial role in the fate of two French companies, Alcatel, sold to Finland’s’
Nokia and Alstom, a part of which was absorbed by GE, it was in effect a debate
about the impact of globalisation and how far France can and should go in
protecting its national champions. Faced with the accusation of selling French industrial
interests down the river, Macron defended himself vigorously, rolled out all the
reasons for his decisions and in doing so, it seemed to me, won the argument. The
end of the debate shifted to the more emotionally charged issue of what it
means to be French and descended, unfortunately, into a shouting match in which
neither man, let alone the journalists trying to moderate the debate, could make
himself heard. But I don’t think I was the only one to feel that, all of a
sudden, Fillon’s representative looked tired, flustered and old-fashioned, as if
long-held concepts, nurtured by a long-established politician, had suddenly been
made to look a little stale by some fresh thinking from a new boy on the block.
I wrote in
a previous post (“The meddling Mr. Macron”) that I had my doubts about Mr. Macron’s
modernising credentials. His performance last night went some way to dispelling
them. If, as polls are now suggesting, he contests the run-off with Marine Le
Pen on May 7, I shall vote for him. In that configuration, I always would have
done. Now, however, I shall do so a little more willingly.
No comments:
Post a Comment