Interesting article thank you. You can make a case for a presidential system with true separation of powers - it has historically worked in the US, although Congress and the judiciary have appeared strangely eclipsed of late. But a parliamentary system would definitely be a good alternative for France. It worked between the 1870s and 1940, and crumbled not because of inherent fragility but foreign invasion. I also agree that some form of proportional representation would promote a spirit of compromise that is currently lacking in my country.
The intersection of being French as an existential concept, the over extension of socialist ideology, and the presence of disruptive illegal and even legal immigrants, will not be resolved by labels on parties. Clearly the collapse of Macronisme , for all its elegance and technocratic centrism, is not a consequence of the structure of France’s imperial presidency, but of the failure to lead the people of France to avoid the tragedy of the current irresolvable collision. Of such failures come revolts.
The old political map—split into “left, center-right, and far-right”—is a nostalgic artifact. That era is gone. The real divide today is between far left, center, and right. And across Europe, the voices of the people are no longer being ignored.
The message is loud and clear: immigration framed as charitable necessity must be reversed. This isn’t xenophobia—it’s civic realism.
The economic Ponzi promises of the far left have reached their limits. The fiscal engine no longer covers those sins. But no politician dares admit it. Instead, we get rhetorical evasions and moral posturing.
If you want to understand the crisis, start by getting the labels right. Then you might begin to see the structural errors—not just in policy, but in the assumptions that built it.
The left/center-right/far-right split isn't an ideological framework—it describes the parliamentary arithmetic so far. The French assembly is divided into three broad groups, each with 150-200 seats. They are by no means monolithic but their component parts have stuck together on important matters, notably confidence motions.
Labels are always contestable. The arc from La France Insoumise to moderate Socialists (including Greens and Communists) calls itself "the left", an uncontroversial term. The group defending Macron—from social democrats in all but name to conservatives—is referred to as "socle commun" (common base). "Centre-right" is a clearer shorthand. The National Rally and its allies object to "far right", but no one sits to their right in parliament, so the label fits.
Concerns about mass immigration are legitimate and widely shared across French politics—only LFI perhaps remains the outlier. My use of "xenophobic" for the RN referred to their stance on denying services to undocumented migrants and their general ''France First" position in world affairs (NATO, EU, etc.)
The three categories describe a moment, not permanent reality. Some conservatives have already left the socle commun; Socialists may very soon split from LFI. French politics is fluid. I will revise the framing of my thought as events unfold.
The Logic of any presidential system! They are all very dangerous for at modest improvement in governace.
https://forum.effectivealtruism.org/posts/uW77FSphM6yiMZTGg/why-not-parliamentarianism-book-by-tiago-ribeiro-dos-santos
Interesting article thank you. You can make a case for a presidential system with true separation of powers - it has historically worked in the US, although Congress and the judiciary have appeared strangely eclipsed of late. But a parliamentary system would definitely be a good alternative for France. It worked between the 1870s and 1940, and crumbled not because of inherent fragility but foreign invasion. I also agree that some form of proportional representation would promote a spirit of compromise that is currently lacking in my country.
The intersection of being French as an existential concept, the over extension of socialist ideology, and the presence of disruptive illegal and even legal immigrants, will not be resolved by labels on parties. Clearly the collapse of Macronisme , for all its elegance and technocratic centrism, is not a consequence of the structure of France’s imperial presidency, but of the failure to lead the people of France to avoid the tragedy of the current irresolvable collision. Of such failures come revolts.
The framing of your thought needs to be revised.
The old political map—split into “left, center-right, and far-right”—is a nostalgic artifact. That era is gone. The real divide today is between far left, center, and right. And across Europe, the voices of the people are no longer being ignored.
The message is loud and clear: immigration framed as charitable necessity must be reversed. This isn’t xenophobia—it’s civic realism.
The economic Ponzi promises of the far left have reached their limits. The fiscal engine no longer covers those sins. But no politician dares admit it. Instead, we get rhetorical evasions and moral posturing.
If you want to understand the crisis, start by getting the labels right. Then you might begin to see the structural errors—not just in policy, but in the assumptions that built it.
The left/center-right/far-right split isn't an ideological framework—it describes the parliamentary arithmetic so far. The French assembly is divided into three broad groups, each with 150-200 seats. They are by no means monolithic but their component parts have stuck together on important matters, notably confidence motions.
Labels are always contestable. The arc from La France Insoumise to moderate Socialists (including Greens and Communists) calls itself "the left", an uncontroversial term. The group defending Macron—from social democrats in all but name to conservatives—is referred to as "socle commun" (common base). "Centre-right" is a clearer shorthand. The National Rally and its allies object to "far right", but no one sits to their right in parliament, so the label fits.
Concerns about mass immigration are legitimate and widely shared across French politics—only LFI perhaps remains the outlier. My use of "xenophobic" for the RN referred to their stance on denying services to undocumented migrants and their general ''France First" position in world affairs (NATO, EU, etc.)
The three categories describe a moment, not permanent reality. Some conservatives have already left the socle commun; Socialists may very soon split from LFI. French politics is fluid. I will revise the framing of my thought as events unfold.