The collapse of Barnier’s government shows bold choices are needed to end France’s political deadlock

Macron and the Socialist Party may hold the key to a way forward but continuing instability could impact the European Union and Ukraine.

Expert comment Updated 8 January 2025 4 minute READ

The no-confidence vote in Michel Barnier that has toppled his minority government was the first since 1962 to oust a French prime minister of the Fifth Republic. 331 MPs from the left and far-right joined forces to ensure the end of Barnier’s leadership. President Macron is due to name a new prime minister, the fourth in just a year, but with no assurance it will bring back the political stability that France has enjoyed over many decades.

The structural reason for the ongoing political instability is the deep fragmentation of the French parliament since 2022.

The reasons for this political turmoil have not vanished with the fall of Barnier’s cabinet. First, it has been driven by the far-left and far-right leaders, Jean-Luc Mélenchon and Marine Le Pen. Their intention is to force Emmanuel Macron to resign ahead of the French presidential election due in 2027. 

Both consider it in their respective political interests to call for this election earlier. Indeed they will continue to pressure any new government, causing further instability, so as to prove the only way out of the political crisis they are fuelling is to hold a new presidential election. A few other political leaders have recently backed this idea which has now made its way into French public debate. Macron will firmly resist, citing his steadfast commitment to his mandate.

‘Constitutional impossibility’ 

Beyond these destabilizing manoeuvres, the structural reason for the ongoing political instability is the deep fragmentation of the French parliament since 2022. The legislative elections that year did not bring about a robust majority needed to underpin the normal functioning of the Fifth Republic. 

The snap elections that Macron surprisingly triggered in June 2024 were largely an attempt to force the electorate to make a choice about the far-right National Rally (Rassemblement National), but they also partly intended to overcome that fragmentation in parliament. Instead, his gamble only made it worse. Three even and antagonist blocs make up today’s National Assembly, the lower chamber that the President cannot dismiss before next July. This constitutional impossibility also explains the present deadlock situation.

Such fragmentation has been exacerbated by the lack of a culture of political compromise in France. Despite various attempts, Barnier was unable to spur rivalling parties to shift position – nor even those political forces supposed to support him, including the President. 

Compromise was especially difficult with respect to the French government’s main duty, that of fixing the budget which is under severe strain at a time of sluggish economic growth. Bringing the deficit down from its excessive 6.1 per cent of GDP in 2024 to 5 per cent in 2025, and then establishing a sustainable path forward, requires unpopular tax rises and spending cuts. No political parties have demonstrated openness to deal jointly on such critical measures. 

For all these reasons, one can expect a new round of political uncertainty with financial, political and geopolitical consequences. 

The cost of instability

Financially, there is no serious risk of a government shutdown. But if parliament finally agreed on a budget that is considered too lenient in reducing the public debt that now represents over 110 per cent of GDP, France would face higher borrowing costs, damaging its fiscal position only more. 

Should parliament be unable to adopt a new budget by the end of this year, 2025 expenditure may be achieved by replicating the 2024 budget on a monthly basis, through special provisions, to keep the state running. Prolonging the current budget into next year without inflation adjustments would lower the deficit but be painful to taxpayers. 

The cost of instability is thus also political. The no-confidence vote upsets farmers, who were relying on new favourable measures for their industry. It was also met with dismay by trade unions. The constant turnover of ministers in charge of key sectors, including housing, education and health, causes delays and potential setbacks.

President Macron and the so-called political class as a whole face growing mistrust from French voters. A recent survey published in Le Monde shows that only 22 per cent of French people trust their MPs, down 7 points in only a year. Public opinion appears weary of endless political squabbles. In such a gloomy mood, it seems not at all guaranteed that possible new parliamentary elections next summer would bring a fresh majority able to overcome the present stalemate.

The French political crisis is unfolding just when the war in Ukraine is possibly at a turning point and a new Trump administration about to take office.

More immediately pressing are the geopolitical consequences of this lingering uncertainty. The French political crisis is unfolding just when the war in Ukraine is possibly at a turning point and a new Trump administration about to take office, threatening a trade war. 

Previously budgeted aid to Kiev would presumably continue, but a provisional or a technocratic government, not least a caretaker cabinet, could hardly release more knowing help to Ukraine is a divisive issue in the French National Assembly. This would hamper Macron’s ability to engage greater support. 

Article second half

Overall, domestic political fighting and possible social unrest in the country inevitably weakens France’s stance in international forums. France’s crisis coincides with the start of German election campaign, meaning no Franco-German impetus can be expected in the European Union over the coming months. This could also delay plans for an EU-UK reset and thwart the agenda of the second Von der Leyen Commission.

Or, as an alternative, France could very well be bypassed in key EU decisions. Paris is particularly nervous about the Mercosur trade deal, which it staunchly opposes, as the agreement between the EU and South American countries is entering final negotiations.

Macron must widen the political backing of the future government by nominating a prime minister acceptable to a larger part of parliament and the public.

Breaking the deadlock that France has put itself in will likely depend on both internal moves and external constraints. In the National Assembly, the Socialist Party which supported the no-confidence vote could play a key role. 

To do so, it must make the decision to leave its alliance with the hard-left La France Insoumise and work with a coalition of mainstream parties. In doing so, and with a general effort from MPs to compromise, it could offer France the stability it needs.

Pressure to change the situation could otherwise come externally from financial markets and European institutions, forcing the government to adjust the country’s fiscal position.

In the very short term, Macron, as head of state, remains key. It is he who must widen the political backing of the future government by nominating a prime minister acceptable to a larger part of parliament and the public. It also falls to him to reassure France’s partners that the country can hold.