François Bayrou, a long-time advocate of establishing proportional representation in parliamentary elections, believes that the current political crisis proves him right, by highlighting the limitations of the current voting method, a two-round single-member majority. Recalling that this measure was one of the conditions of his alliance with Emmanuel Macron in 2017, this close friend of the head of state proposes that this change in the electoral law be adopted by referendum.
More than seven weeks after the early legislative elections, France still does not have a new prime minister. Do you think the current deadlock is due to our voting method?
For the most part, yes. This electoral law forces people who have nothing in common, whose political and philosophical orientations are opposite, to unite artificially in order to add votes. On the other hand, majority voting requires conflict. It is more electorally profitable to designate an enemy and make it the adversary to be defeated. Simplistic confrontation and antagonism are more profitable than a constructive approach. The “bastards” on one side and the “pure” on the other, and any agreement is prohibited. Programmed blockage.
How would proportional voting offer a solution when current political fragmentation creates blockages?
The proportional electoral law is fair and, moreover, it creates a new political landscape. Everyone comes out in their own colours, it is a more authentic approach and requires you to explore your own ideas. As soon as we get over the bar of, say, 5%, we are assured of a representative parliamentary group. But everyone knows that they will not get a majority on their own. We are therefore forced to see our competitors not only as adversaries, but also as potential partners. We know even before the result that we will have to compose. It changes everything. I add that the current situation is rather funny. For decades, the defenders of the majoritarian system eruditely explained that it was the only way to obtain majorities. And we have the result before our eyes: an Assembly more explosive than ever. Their thesis has become untenable.
The issue is absent from the various pacts proposed, in particular by your allies in the outgoing majority. How do you explain this when the issue could be unifying, if we are to believe what you say?
The voting method shapes minds, not for a single election, but for a long time. Even in an Assembly that has become so diverse and therefore forced to reach agreements, majoritarian reflexes persist: the clandestine character, the caricature and the hatred of its competitors. But I see every day that this idea of proportionality is now in everyone’s mind. It is the only credible perspective for normalizing pluralism. It forces all political forces to recognize legitimacy, even that of their adversaries. It is now inevitable, and fortunately, that this idea will gain ground.
You have 58.62% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.
