Vote of no confidence in France

Written by 
Jacques Smith, Senior Consultant at Clai SEC Newgate France

Marine Le Pen's political deadlock strategy taking over her institutionalisation process

Last night, the Barnier government fell, only three months after its appointment, making it the shortest-lived government in the Fifth Republic. This downfall is the direct result of the first vote of no confidence adopted by the National Assembly since 1962. How did it come to this ?

The legislative elections following the dissolution decided by the President of the Republic last June resulted in a fragmented National Assembly divided into three blocs: the left-wing New Popular Front, the central bloc uniting deputies from the presidential camp and the right-wing, and finally, deputies from the Rassemblement national and its allies. After a summer dominated by the Olympic Games and facing the left’s categorical refusal to support any government not originating from its ranks, Michel Barnier was appointed Prime Minister. He was tasked with leading a "compromise" government, relying on the central bloc and enjoying provisional tolerance from the Rassemblement national. The agreement in September was clear: if the government "respected" the 11 million Rassemblement national voters and adopted a posture of dialogue with its 140 deputies, the party would refrain from voting down the budget, allowing the government to make it through the winter.

It is clear that this was not the case, as the Rassemblement national supported the left's motion of no confidence, thereby enabling its adoption. By voting solely for its own motion of no confidence—which had no chance of succeeding—the Rassemblement national could have expressed its dissatisfaction with certain provisions of the budget while continuing its process of institutionalization, in contrast to the New Popular Front's strategy of total opposition. It is therefore legitimate to question the reasons that led Marine Le Pen, now at the center of the political stage, to change course.

The most obvious reason is likely linked to pressure from Rassemblement National activists and its voter base, who struggled to understand Marine Le Pen's constructive stance toward Michel Barnier, particularly given the tax increases planned in the budget. The Rassemblement national claims its top priority is to protect the purchasing power of its electoral base, which is primarily made up of workers and employees. However, the issue of pensions must also be considered. During the first round of legislative elections in late June, the nationalist party led among retirees for the first time in its history, securing 31% of their votes compared to 12% in 2022. Aware of the importance of this momentum within a crucial voter base that turns out heavily during elections, the Rassemblement national is working to solidify this advantage. Thus, framing the removal of the planned decoupling of pensions from inflation in the budget as a necessary condition for the group’s decision not to censure the government appears to be a savvy political maneuver and a communication strategy that could pay off with this electorate.

The Rassemblement national had long believed that using the ultimate weapon of a motion of no confidence could undermine its strategy of institutionalization, aimed at winning over the traditional right-wing electorate, which values political and economic stability. Additionally, the reasons behind this reversal may also lie in Marine Le Pen’s current personal situation with regard to the judiciary.

A few weeks ago, the prosecutor's office requested a harsher sentence than expected : five years of ineligibility, to take immediate effect upon the ruling, even in the case of an appeal. The vote on the motion of no confidence could be seen as a reaction of anger, especially if Marine Le Pen truly believes, as she claims, that the severity of this request is linked to the current government. However, the reasoning might run deeper. In recent days, the idea of the President resigning has gained traction, with the left explicitly calling for it and Marine Le Pen cleverly pretending to leave the decision to the President himself as to whether it is reasonable to remain in office under the current politically powerless circumstances. Should the President resign, a presidential election would need to be held within 35 days, making the prospect of a vote in the coming months less inconceivable than it appeared just days ago. In the event of an early presidential campaign, with the court’s ruling scheduled for March 31, it seems unlikely that judges would rule Marine Le Pen ineligible given her status of frontrunner in the polls. The notion of judges determining the political destiny of a country is hardly acceptable in a democracy.

One fact is certain : since last night, France finds itself in a serious political deadlock and a major institutional impasse. The motion of no confidence was passed without any alternative plan in place, and nothing guarantees that the next government will last any longer than Michel Barnier's. For now, a constructive cooperation between the parliamentary forces at hand appears, in the short term, to be the only necessary condition for resolving the crisis, in the nation's interest, which could lead to a new dissolution of the National Assembly, possible as of next June. Otherwise, the resignation of the President of the Republic will be necessary to pull the country out of the impasse.