A keen observer of French political life and a regular contributor to FigaroVox, Maxime Tandonnet has notably published
“
André Tardieu.
The misunderstood
”
(Perrin, 2019).
To discover
Relive the Macron-Le Pen debate for the 2022 presidential election
Macron-Le Pen debate: what to remember from the face-to-face for the 2022 presidential election
This duel between Marine le Pen and Emmanuel Macron, this second round debate of April 20, the French did not want it at any price.
Like multiple opinion polls on this topic, a February 2020 poll, published by
Marianne
, confirmed it without the slightest possible doubt: 80% of French people, or 8 out of 10 French people, hoped to avoid it.
And yet, they did not succeed in escaping it.
Why ?
“
He who controls the fear of others becomes master of their souls
,” wrote Machiavelli.
Faced with the "yellow vests" and then during the health crisis and at the time of the invasion of Ukraine, President Macron imposed himself in the posture of the "warlord", particularly in the eyes of an elderly bourgeoisie and frightened.
Thus he presented himself as an arch favorite to his own succession, not for his balance sheet, nor for his project, but for a legitimist reflex in the face of endless crises...
As for Marine le Pen, for the past five years she has been widely promoted by the power of the media as a quasi-official opponent enjoying TV/radio coverage worthy of a head of state.
According to a survey carried out as part of the "Arcadia project" carried out between 2018 and 2020 on the media exposure of parliamentarians, his speaking time (197 hours) pulverizes that of all his opponents (three times that of socialist leader Olivier Faure, etc.)
President Macron showed himself to be true to himself, extremely professorial, precise, mastering his files as well as possible, constantly bordering on arrogance.
Maxime Tandonnet
This debate that the French did not want was therefore imposed on them, because of the circumstances and a certain polling and media hype.
The French did not want it but the "system", as General de Gaulle said, condemned them to undergo this debate once again.
However, compared to other recent debates, the two adversaries have managed to preserve a certain dignity and correctness.
They only rarely insulted or interrupted each other, even giving the impression, at times, of respecting each other... From 9 p.m. to almost midnight, this debate turned out, without much surprise, much more balanced than five years before when Mr. Macron crushed candidate Le Pen.
Read alsoMacron-Le Pen debate: a dialogue without a winner by knockout, but advantage to the president
President Macron showed himself to be true to himself, extremely professorial, precise, mastering his files as well as possible, constantly bordering on arrogance, including towards journalists.
He never wavered from his self-satisfaction on all subjects: unemployment, hospital, energy, security, immigration.
In five years, in his eyes everything had been perfect or almost.
In a rather technical debate, he kept scoring points in terms of competence and technicality, several times confronting his competitor with his contradictions or approximations.
Mme le Pen was also equal to herself, sometimes confused, imprecise and demagogue.
It was on the verge of disaster with its illusory proposals such as the banning of the headscarf on the public highway, which its competitor had no trouble showing the unrealistic nature.
Similarly, it showed incredible shortcomings in the Constitution, confusing article 11 (referendum on the organization of public powers) and article 89 (referendum on constitutional revision).
There too, Mr. Macron had no trouble putting her in the face of her contradiction since her reasoning resulted in excluding Parliament from the process of constitutional revision when she had just come out in favor of its strengthening.
But at a late hour of the night, who could care?
One certainty in any case: this debate, more politician than politics in the noble sense of the term, will not change much following the presidential election and will not mark French political history.
Maxime Tandonnet
Paradoxically, she gave the feeling of gaining the upper hand in terms of empathy and sensitivity to popular suffering, to which she kept coming back.
Her performance could give the viewer an image that was much less competent but more sincere and closer to the people than that of her adversary… She tried to put the laughers on her side about wind turbines (accusing President Macron of saturating the maritime coasts with them). "except at Le Touquet") arousing the exasperation of the latter.
His virulent criticism of the results of the five-year economic policy (public debt, unemployment, poverty, foreign trade) had the same effect of knocking Emmanuel Macron out of his hinges...
Read alsoPresidential debate: Macron dominates, Le Pen holds the shock
One certainty in any case: this debate, more politician than politics in the noble sense of the term, will not change much following the presidential election and will not mark French political history.
The exercise of "show politics" was rather successful with, face to face, two adversaries who have been eyeing each other for five years.
This new meeting of complacency and demagogy, rambling, has often become entangled in details and polemics.
But at no time were the major issues affecting the future of the country addressed with the height that befits the presidential election: the reindustrialisation of the country, France's place in the world, the future of our system education and the intellectual recovery of the country, the fight against the social divide and the preservation of the