In Agatha Christie's novel Hole, the eccentric Lucy Ankatel hosts a dinner party for the married couple Christo (John, a famous doctor, and his wife Gerda), several members of her extended family and her neighbor, detective Hercule Poirot. The next morning, Poirot witnesses a scene that seems strangely staged: Gerda standing with a gun in her hand next to John's body, blood dripping into the pool. Lucy, Henrietta (John's lover) and Edward (Lucy's cousin) are also present. With his last breath, John says, "Henrietta," and dies.
It seems obvious that Gerda is the killer. Henrietta takes the revolver from her hand, but gets tangled up and drops it in the water, destroying her fingerprints. Poirot realizes that John, on his deathbed, wanted to ask his mistress to save his wife from prison.
Without a conscious plan, the whole family becomes involved in the plot and deliberately misdirects Poirot. Each of them knows that Gerda is the murderer, so they set up the crime scene, but in a reflexive way: the deception lies in the very fact that everything looks staged. The truth is disguised as fiction, so the set-up elements are actually "clues". As Agatha Christie's other famous detective, Jane Marple, notes in the book Mirror game: "Never underestimate the power of the obvious."
If we imagine democracy instead of John's body, and French President Emmanuel Macron instead of Gerda, we can get a somewhat clearer impression of the situation in France after the parliamentary elections this summer. After the far-right National Rally party won the first round, Macron was caught with a gun in his hand. But in the following weeks and months, he managed to protect French democracy by partially suspending it, thus denying the winner of the second round - the left-wing New Popular Front coalition - the fruits of victory.
The French constitution - imposed by Charles de Gaulle in 1958 during the establishment of the Fifth Republic - stipulates that the president appoints a prime minister whose government can function even if its members are not confirmed by the National Assembly. Because of this oddity, François Mitterrand would later label the Fifth Republic as undemocratic, describing it in 1964 as a "permanent coup d'état".
The reason for this constitutional provision was that French citizens should be forced to choose and that, if their choice is unclear, the president has the authority - and the duty - to maintain order and stability. Both the European Parliament elections in June and the parliamentary elections in France showed that French voters were unable or unwilling to make a clear choice. By doing so, they gave Macron the opportunity to suppress both the extreme right and the left-wing coalition, by uniting his own coalition with the Gaullist Republicans.
Macron was criticized by many for calling the election immediately after the National Rally won the European elections. But the National Assembly was defeated in the national elections, while the other parties effectively supported Macron's solution by not asking for a vote of no confidence in his recently appointed prime minister, Michel Barnier.
Something similar happened in France during the historic protests of May 1968, which almost brought down de Gaulle and his government - or so it seemed - only for him to return with a new National Assembly. The protests erupted at the height of the French welfare state, when living standards were higher than ever before.
In retrospect, this implies that a strong case can be made for an enlightened dictatorship. France is lucky that its constitution allows for the partial suspension of parliamentary democracy that Macron has embarked on. Just imagine what will happen in Germany where there is no possibility to form a government without the inclusion of the far-right Alternative for Germany.
I don't agree with Macron's policies and solutions, but I respect his quick reaction to the apparent rise of the far right this summer. His decision to dissolve parliament was certainly risky, but it was a risk worth taking. The new fascism must be fought vigorously wherever it appears.
Although National Assembly leader Marina Le Pen was denied a runoff victory, CNN described the outcome as follows: "Macron's decision to take a risk kept the far right out of power but plunged France into chaos." Since Macron and Jean-Luc Mélenchon ( key figure in the left-wing coalition) were too far apart, it seemed impossible to reach an agreement on the creation of a grand coalition. Instead, France appeared to be bracing itself for a prolonged period of instability and anti-leftist intrigue - bad news for an already shaky economy and attempts to fend off the far-right in the 2027 presidential election.
Instead, France it is not sunk into chaos. At least for now, Macron's risky move seems to have restored some semblance of normality. Some will ask whether an unelected government can survive; but others will answer: "Why not?" This is certainly preferable to a parliament without a majority, prolonged political unrest and social and economic chaos.
By partially suspending democracy, Macron kept the far right out of power and restored stability. For that, he deserves congratulations and support. With neo-fascism on the rise globally, similar measures may prove necessary elsewhere. As philosopher Jon Elster concluded in 2020: "We can reverse the common phrase about the threat to democracy and say that democracy is a threat, at least in its short-term populist form."
(Project Syndicate; Peščanik.net, translation: M. Jovanović)
Bonus video:
