Virendra Pandit
New Delhi: Imagine the heads of states/governments in any of the SAARC member-nations jointly urging voters in one of their countries to reject a particular leader to save the regional group!
That is exactly what happened in the just-concluded elections to the French presidency. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz and two other European leaders took the unusual step last week of making clear the importance of a vote against Marine Le Pen in an opinion article in the daily newspaper Le Monde.
Clearly, they favored incumbent Emmanuel Macron, 44, for a second term as the French President, against his challenger Marine Le Pen, the far-right National Rally Party leader, who failed her third attempt to lead France.
The European leaders’ letter reflected the anxiety in their capitals and Washington that preceded the French vote on Sunday.
“It is the choice between a Democratic candidate, who believes that France is stronger in a powerful and autonomous European Union, and a far-right candidate, who openly sides with those who attack our freedom and our democracy,” they wrote.
No French President has been re-elected since 2002, let alone by a 17-point margin. Macron’s unusual achievement in securing five more years in power reflects his effective stewardship over the pandemic crisis, his rekindling of the economy, and his political agility in occupying the entire center of the political spectrum, according to the media.
In the election results, Macron defeated Le Pen, winning 58.5 percent of the vote against her 41.5 percent, after a campaign in which his promise of stability prevailed over the temptation of an extremist lurch.
But Macron’s victory was much narrower than in 2017, when the margin was 66.1 percent to 33.9 percent for Le Pen, but still wider than appeared likely two weeks ago, the media reported on Monday.
Reacting to his win, Macron said his victory was for “a more independent France and a stronger Europe…Our country is riddled with so many doubts, so many divisions. We will have to be strong, but nobody will be left by the side of the road.”
Le Pen, who is seen as closer to Russian President Vladimir Putin, while conceding defeat in her third attempt to become president, bitterly criticized Macron’s “brutal and violent methods” without specifying.
In effect, the presidential election in the largest Catholic country of Europe, at a critical moment with fighting raging in Ukraine from February 24 after the Russian invasion, rejected a candidate hostile to a worried NATO, the European Union, and the United States.
Le Pen had visited President Putin during her last campaign in 2017. Had she become the French President, she would almost certainly have pursued policies that weakened the united allied front to save Ukraine from Russia’s assault, offered Putin a breach to exploit in Europe, and undermined the European Union, whose engine has always been a joint Franco-German commitment to it. Her opponents believed she would have torpedoed unity in NATO, the EU, and the West.
That is why Europe can now breathe easily. German Chancellor Olaf Scholz declared that Macron’s win was “a vote of confidence in Europe.” British Prime Minister Boris Johnson congratulated Macron and called France “one of our closest and most important allies.”
Macron’s success is attributed to his spurring growth, slashing unemployment, and instilling a start-up tech culture, although he could not address growing inequality or simmering anger among the alienated and the struggling in areas of urban blight and rural remoteness. Societal divisions sharpened as incomes stagnated, prices rose, and factories moved abroad.
Le Pen had proposed a ban on the Muslim headscarf and equated Islam with violence in France which has the largest Muslim community in western Europe. Her policies angered the Muslims.
But Macron was not far behind. It shows the changing political landscape not only in France but across Europe.
Emerging from the moderate left of the political system, and supported by many socialists five years ago, Macron veered to the right both in his initial economic policy and the decision to confront what he called “Islamist separatism” by shutting down several mosques and Islamic associations.
He judged he had more to gain on the right than to fear on the fragmented left of the political spectrum in a country several Islamic terrorist attacks have deeply marked whose psyche since 2015. His victory proved him correct, the master of a broad web of adjustable allegiances that left his opponents floundering, the media added.