Benjamin Morel is a lecturer in public law at the University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas.
FIGAROVOX. - In view of all the results, who is the winner of this first round of regional elections?
Benjamin MOREL. -
The winners are obviously the leavers, whether on the right or on the left for that matter. The results show a real dynamic in their favor, in particular the three presidential candidates from the right. This dynamic should be put into perspective with regard to abstention. Cold and from a purely objective point of view, we cannot speak of a tidal wave, let alone plebiscites. As part of a massive abstention, they capitalized on the mobilization of traditional electorates and on a relative notoriety compared to their competitors. As a percentage of registrants, for example, Valérie Pécresse mobilized only 8% of Ile-de-France residents. We must therefore stop praising this new essential and popular character that would have become the president of the region.
However, the victory is symbolically very strong and the contenders for the Elysee on the right should strongly take advantage of it. If it is not a plebiscite, the important thing is that it is taken as such, especially in the right-wing electorate who will return to the right only if they believe in a victory under their own colors. However, if it is not certain that these regions have launched an electoral dynamic, they could launch a media dynamic for Valérie Pécresse, Xavier Bertrand and Laurent Wauquiez. The latter can give hope to the right-wing electorate and bring it back to the ranks. The condition is obviously that these dynamics do not neutralize each other in the context of a fratricidal confrontation between the three applicants ...
LREM comes out with a pitiful score, but his goal has never been to win.
Benjamin Morel
Is the presidential majority the big loser of this first round?
The first loser is first the RN.
He was playing doubles in this election.
First, he had to demonstrate his ability to mobilize his electorate in the interim elections.
This is important, because to win an election the ability to mobilize voters is just as important as the understanding of the electoral spectrum covered.
Then, winning a region must allow it to give the feeling that there is no longer a glass ceiling and gain very important managerial credibility in order to attract the right-wing electorate.
However, on all these points, the objectives seem to be moving away.
LREM comes out with a pitiful score, but his goal has never been to win. The defeat of the marchers is more strategic. LREM's goal was to force incumbent presidents into an alliance to retain their majority. Thus, parties unable to endorse these agreements made by their barons would be weakened, and their local bases undermined. This is the strategy that paid off in PACA and could have taken place in many regions. In some, LREM may still want to play this game. In Pays-de-la-Loire, Bourgogne-Franche-Comté, Brittany, Grand Est in particular, it could prove to be central. Still, it does not have the scope of what its strategists hoped. Then, the second part of the strategy was to parasitize the momentum of the right-wing candidates, in particular Xavier Bertrand ...given the pantalonnade of the LREM list in Hauts-de-France, and the score of the outgoing president, this is a dismal failure.
The vagueness of competences and even now of statutes can only lead to demobilization and confusion.
Benjamin Morel
Is the ballot representative, despite a record abstention rate of 68%?
From a purely legal point of view, yes… from a political point of view, it is very debatable.
To represent is to act on behalf of someone ... but here who is someone and what is it about?
The over-mobilization of certain electorates makes these communities the representation of a certain essentially elderly and rather easy-going France.
There is therefore even more today than yesterday a distortion between those who really represent these communities and those on behalf of whom they say they speak.
Then act on what? The vagueness of competences and even now of statutes can only lead to demobilization and confusion. Did the voters of the metropolis of Lyon really understand why they did not vote in the departmental? Did those of the European Collectivity of Alsace understand the framework and the competences of their new collectivity? Moreover, after two years of gargling "territories" and "agile" "proximity", we see that in reality this is more of a media chestnut than a real demand from the public. In an Opinion Way survey for the Spring of the Economy in April 2020, the state is recognized as the legitimate authority to conduct most major public policies. Regarding health, 57% believe that it should be managed by the State,11% at the local level, 32% at the international level. Regarding education, 61% attribute it to the State, 13% to the local level, 26% to the international level. The same goes for employment; 54% for the State against 19% locally and 27% internationally. There is sympathy and attachment to certain communities, mainly the communes. However, there is not really the projection of power.there is not really the projection of a power.there is not really the projection of a power.
Can alliances reshuffle the cards in the second round?
It's unlikely, but massive abstention also makes the results very volatile.
If the RN electorate were to mobilize a few more points next week, the results could be upset.
In addition, alliances are less and less predictive of voter behavior.
A union of the left behind an environmentalist can thus lead part of the PS electorate to take refuge in your LREM or even LR, a part of rebellious voters to prefer the RN or abstention.
Likewise, there would be such loss effects in the event of the head of the PS or LFI list on the left, or in the event of an LR-LREM alliance.
In short, the second all is not yet written.
