It is impossible to tackle the building site of state obesity and public over-indebtedness, the cause of all evils among our neighbours, by placing the best representatives of a technocracy at the center of the system.
The appointment of Elisabeth Borne as Prime Minister will logically lead to continued economic decline and fiscal strangulation. It is not unreasonable to expect a further increase in the number of civil servants and public expenditure. But in the short term, it should (a little) please the electorate of the social democratic left.
Former boss of the RATP, ex-prefect of the Poitou-Charentes region, this polytechnician is a pure “left-wing techno”. First characteristic of a technocrat, she has never been elected by the citizens. On the other hand, she has held several ministerial positions and thus has a very good knowledge of the mysteries of power. On the other hand, as a manager, including through her brief stint in the direction of the public works group Eiffage, she did not go through the entrepreneurial box. But France cannot succeed in its recovery without understanding what is happening outside France in the reality of international competition.
If globalization has slowed down, it remains lively. It recognizes innovative companies that know how to establish themselves in the most dynamic markets and that produce from economic zones that offer them the best framework conditions, particularly fiscal ones. In this regard, France is regressing, as indicated by its mediocre score on the Fraser Index of Economic Freedom.
It is not enough to present a “hardworking, loyal and open” Prime Minister, to use the most frequent descriptions.
The choice of a Prime Minister of the techno left is the culmination of an electoral process which will have highlighted the tactical quality of Emmanuel Macron to impose himself. He reached the desired final against Marine Le Pen, then to demonize the far right, before returning to current affairs, and to limit the campaign for the legislative elections as much as possible.
In this game, the media played a key role. The balance sheet of the last five years has not been, or very little, dealt with, neither the McKinsey affairs, nor security issues.
Emmanuel Macron won, but the democratic process reveals a thousand fractures and a growing polarization of political life. The question of the necessary signatures doomed the two truly liberal candidates, and led to a strange drafting operation of the best placed in the polls.
Moreover, liberalism is described in such a way that the French can hardly find a taste for it. Which media present the human toll of communism? Who correctly describes liberalism, a philosophy of law that has enabled countries inspired by it to multiply their income by twenty in two centuries and to greatly increase life expectancy? Is it any surprise that French liberalism gets less support than the Communist Party?
We prefer, in this regard, to speak of the law of the jungle, of the absence of a State and of selfishness, whereas on the contrary liberalism claims freedom and individual responsibility, sources of progress and prosperity, which supposes a Strong state but reduced to sovereign affairs. Today, the French state is bloated and distributes privileges to innumerable interest groups, but it is not able to satisfy sovereign tasks.
The extreme left, represented by both the Communist Party of Fabien Roussel and the communitarian Jean-Luc Mélenchon, has sadly been spared by the “politically correct” media despite their positions as revolutionary as they are scandalous with regard to one of Stalin, the other of Chávez. The future is very bleak for France if we consider that young people voted more in favor of Mélenchon and Le Pen than of the president himself.
If we take a little height, we see that Emmanuel Macron, who shone in the exercise of reducing political debate to its simplest expression, is part of a larger trend. In the European Union, major decisions are taken in Brussels, in terms of currency, energy, immigration and international policy. It is unelected people who pull the strings of the EU.
Member States are increasingly specializing in the management of constraints. Emmanuel Macron achieves in France what Mario Draghi accomplished in Italy. Some will say, with good reason, that it is a loss of sovereignty. Others will consider that it is the price to pay for the EU to make its voice heard in the international arena.