The first protest against a fuel tax was on November 16th, 2018—at that time no one could have imagined that it would have ballooned into the largest series of protests in France since the infamous 1968 demonstrations. As of writing, the protest of the gilets jaunes(yellow vests that all French drivers are legally required to have in their car) is now comprised of nine “acts,” with promises of future performances.
The struggles of French President Emmanuel Macron’s government against the gilets jaunescan be explained using ideological power, or legitimacy, which focuses on the ability to get others to do what you want willingly. Another aspect of the protests is the demonstration of the importance of the effectiveness and efficacy of the government. The efficacy of a government is seen when a government can find solutions to basic problems, which relates to effectiveness because a government must also be able to implement the solutions it finds. When a government fails to have legitimacy, efficacy, or effectiveness, in some cases citizens become impatient with the instituted democratic processes.
Macron’s rise to power came with promises to introduce reforms to fix growing economic inequality. One of these reforms, the fuel tax, was meant to support environmental protection but was viewed by many as a policy that disregards those who are not rich because it would cause a spike in fuel prices. Initially, many of the protesters lived outside of the major metropolitan areas and required a car to commute. Now, many low- and middle-class citizens have joined the protests as well.
The power of the protests is unprecedented—the government has backed out of the fuel tax yet it is still struggling with how to respond to the demands of the protesters. When the yellow vest movement gained momentum, it certainly did not help Macron’s image in many of the minds of the protesters that he refused to respond to them for days. Many of the surveys conducted within the first month showed that nearly 75% of the French population supported the movement. Because of this support, Macron felt the need to respond by scrapping the fuel tax (a first for his government) and promising future reforms for salaries. His subsequent promiseshave not returned any of the legitimacy that he lost—power that is necessary to run France effectively.
The loss of Macron’s ideological power has not been sudden. It is the result of a numberof his policies. Many perceive him to be attacking France from all angles: labor laws, university admissions, and even the railroads. He has also cut taxes for the wealthy and made unfortunate comments about “those who are nothing.” This style of top-down governance and policies perceived as favoring the wealthy coupled with his arrogance has led to a massive surge in loss of willingness to go along with the Macron’s ideas. Some analysts describe this loss of poweras cyclical, starting with the French Revolution when the people overthrew the monarchy, culminating in a months-long Reign of Terror.
Louis XVI, the last king of France, was slow to recognize the needs of the people. After a poor harvest, they were at wit’s end with being taxed excessively. Historians estimate that nearly 8,500 rebellions had taken place in the 130 years preceding the fall of the monarchy, yet none had been successful. Weakened by wars abroad and outrageous spending, Louis XVI convened the Estates General in order to appease many of the incensed. However, he refused to give legitimacy to the poorer and more numerous Third Estate. His actions culminated in his execution—actions that were interpreted as selfish and paranoid.
While the French monarchy was clearly authoritarian, there were some aspects of democracy, such as the Estates General. The perceived failure of these democratic processes (reforms never came quickly or were hardly reforms) led to uprisings that led to anarchy and civil war. Both of these leaders have faced a loss of both efficacy and effectiveness, which undermined their legitimacy. The king’s ignorance of the people led to his downfall—and it is possible that the people will use their votes to get rid of Macron come the next presidential election. Without being the ability to find solutions and then putting the correct policies to achieve the desired outcomes, both have been weakened greatly.
The patterns between both Louis XVI and Emmanuel Macron are significant: both are not seen as strong by the people, both have faced crises of rising costs of living, and both are seen as favoring the wealthy. There is even comparison between the wives: many hold dubious beliefs about Brigitte Macron, just as they held dubious beliefs about Marie Antoinette. Without strong efficacy, the people could continue to become more and more discontented with the government.
However, just like Louis XVI, Macron is not just a product of his own decisions. He inherited the government from one of the most unpopular presidents ever in France. He also is having to face many issues, such as immigration and Europeanization, that have plagued the French government for decades. Macron will have to not just open dialogue about the issues that matter to French citizens, but also be willing to compromise in order to appeal to those who do not agree with him.
*Photo taken by K. Sparks. Yellow vest protesters in Lyon, France, Dec. 8th during the Festival of Light.
This post brings to light an important discussion of the role popular protests play in democracy. We often take for granted our democratic right to voice concerns with our government’s policies, and the right to protest is certainly an important way of holding elected officials accountable. Governments that refuse to recognize their citizens’ right to protest could certainly be considered less democratic, and the recent protests of the gilets jaunes present a great case for examining this further.
However, I do think some distinction should be made between the circumstances of the protests in 18th versus in 21st century France. Louis XVI was not a democratically-elected president, and French citizens had no say in his appointment. Contrarily, Macron was elected democratically – and the fuel tax was included in his platform. Thus, while not every French citizen chose Macron as their elected leader, there has to be some legitimacy in the outcome of the election – and indirectly, the decision to institute a fuel tax. This is not to say that French citizens should not protest a law they disagree with, but are the extremity and violence of the gilets jaunes protests justified? To what extent does French democracy exonerate Macron, if at all? How can we reconcile the right to protest with contesting a policy of an elected politician?
The post does a good job arguing that the yellow vest protests represent a crisis of legitimacy for President Macron. The 2017 presidential election marked the collapse of mainstream governing parties and set a record high rate for abstentions. Macron won the presidency through voter discontent and disenfranchisement. Macron also won without a socially rooted party and as a result has governed without the party infrastructure necessary to be adequately responsive to societal demands. This feature of his presidency is compounded by his seeming lack of empathy for ordinary French citizens (as the post mentions: “those who are nothing”). This article’s emphasis of growing inequality is similarly important. The political scientists Acemoglu and Robinson demonstrate that the danger of democratic backsliding is higher where demands for redistribution exist.
I think the weakness of En Marche and the weakness of the party system as a whole have left the French state without the institutional means of producing and absorbing the impact of change at a moment where change is demanded. The yellow vest protests have laid bare the deterioration of institutional means of representation in France.
The commonalities between Macron and Louis XVI are interesting; however, I think the differences in the current situation Macron is facing and the situation Louis XVI was involved in are important. Although the Estates General was a legislative body and Louis XVI called it when faced with protest against high taxes and Macron faced a protest against taxes and economic inequality, Macron did repeal the Fuel Tax and gave into the initial demand by the yellow vest movement. He definitely was not ignorant of the people and if he is to continue governing he has to rely on the people. As Noa notes, the king was an authoritarian ruler and Macron was elected in. The whole governing system is different and Macron has legitimacy in that he was democratically -elected. In addition, I have to believe that the French Parliament today under democracy has more power than the Estates General did under the authoritarian King, as the King had to call for it to convene. It will be interesting to see how Parliament deals with the yellow vest movement, and how their actions could calm the movement or even possibly heighten legitimacy concerns of the entire political system. As Juan Linz & Alfred Stepan say in The Breakdown of Democratic
Regimes, if the government is not able to deal with a crisis, the political system is more likely lose legitimacy through passive obedience being replaced with support for a disloyal opposition who would resort to violence, as the opposition to Louis XVI did.
I also would like to push back against this analogy. While both Louis XVI and Macron faced wide-spread revolutions, many other leaders faced uprisings (such as de Gaulle). Another distinction that isn’t clear in this post is Macron’s popularity. Though Macron certainly has lost popularity, he was not very well-liked during the elections. Even though Macron won 66% of the vote, many voters voted against Le Pen, not in support of Macron. The post also argues that Macron is seen as inefficient, but this is not really true. A defining characteristic of French democracy is the efficiency of the executive branch. French presidents have much more power to accomplish their policy program during their term. Macron has passed legislation, it just is unpopular. Macron won on a centrist platform, and much of what he has passed in office has leaned to the right. Though Macron is struggling to end the gillet jeune protests, he has displayed efficiency (too much efficiency) in other areas. What is more interesting about the protests is their longevity and lack of centralized demands. Though the National Rally has claimed responsibility for the protests, much of the protestors do not align themselves with the party. Lacking a political party backing, the sheer disorder of the protest continues to defy the odds as it lasts on and on.
This post makes several interesting historical connections between an infamous French historical character, King Louis XVI and the current President of France, Emmanuel Macron. I appreciate what Kennan has done in drawing these connections. Louis XVI was known as the culmination of a long history of neglect by the French monarchy and thereby saw to its downfall. The combination of his neglect, a war-depleted economy and starving people led to years of rioting and the eventual murder of the monarchy and elites. Although there are several stark differences between the two cases noted in the article—such as the fact that Macron is suffering under the weight of protests, but no one has yet been guillotined—one detail I feel that was left out differentiating the two was the fact that Macron can be viewed as a Populist leader. Louis XVI was a monarch so he was born into the role being arrogant and loving the elites, but Macron was voted in on the promise to change France for the better, yet still embodies much of the same elitism found in the French Monarchy of the 18th century.
According to Jan-Werner Müller’s article “What is Populism” (2016) populists use several tactics to debase their opponents and claim their love for the people all to gain power and control over the government. Macron follows all of these key characteristics to the letter. Macron was voted into office against a shockingly strong opponent, who he often sought to undermine in candidacy debates. Marie LaPenn, a far right and strongly opinionated woman with pro-nationalist and anti-immigration sentiments, was the result of a wave of far-right wing parties that was seen sweeping much of Europe this past election cycle as everyone had a knee-jerk reaction to swing as far away from the rising socialist parties that had been in power for the last couple election terms. In many countries, these right-wing leaders were successful in taking seats in either the majority of parliament or the chief of state position, such as in Germany, Spain and Hungary. France, however, came close with LaPenn’s unsuspecting popularity, but she was still defeated by Macron, for a number of reasons.
Macron lead a “grass-roots” campaign pattered after that of Barak Obama’s in 2008, (BBC’s Becky Branford “Five Reasons Why Macron Won the French Election”), and using such a technique really championed for the “homme de la rue” or the common man. However, Macron’s political past says another story. He was closely tied to the previous president, François Hollande, who was a part of the socialist party that people claim catered to the elites, but the real tragedy of Hollande’s presidency was his handling of the economy, foreign affairs, and series of terrorist attacks that destroyed the party’s image. Knowing this, Macron decided to run under the lesser known La République party under the words “En Marche” which means “on the move” signaling his plans to move the French people forward and away from these crises.
However, after several years in office, one can see he only planned on moving the elites towards more wealth and the “homme de la rue” towards harsher taxes and restrictions on their wealth and mobility. Eventually the tension boiled over and lead to the creation of the Gilets Jaunes (yellow jacket protesters) in 2018 (Le Figaro’s Anne de Guigné “Les Fermetures D’Équipements à L’origine Des «Gilets Jaunes»”). It’s no secret that the French have always loved their protests and always will, but this particular movement has had a 75% approval rating from the French people, and since the movement was founded to combat Macron’s fuel tax, that’s 75% of the French population against Macron. This has lead to an almost complete loss of control over the French people on Macron’s part as he succumbed to their whims and gave up what little power he had, which I find truly amusing for one particular reason, Macron is a populist in definition, but he is missing one crucial piece: the love of the people.
Despite his use of his grass-roots campaigning to highlight his love of the people, and then gaining power, he made the mistake of using that power to raise taxes on fuel in hopes of helping the planet (short term policies with emotional appeal), and then finally by benefiting the rich with this raising of taxes on a commodity that belongs to them anyway. The difference with this particular case compared to the other large number of politicians who lean toward elitism and go back on their promises, is the French are a proud people who are not afraid to disrupt the working of things to get what they want from their politicians. As seen with Louis XVI, the French will go to any lengths to achieve justice in their government and ensure all the “homme de la rue” are heard, and Macron clearly forgot about this particular aspect of his people’s mentality. So once Macron went back on his promises and once again started favoring the elites, chaos erupted. Not nearly to the level of the protests and rioting of the 1760s, but definitely more than Macron could manage.
The culmination of all these events makes one things certain, Macron and Louis XVI were similar in many aspects, they were not popular with the people due to their inherent elitism, they lost all semblance of power to the protesting people, and are facing/faced the stress and consequences of going against the will of the French people. However, I view Macron as slightly worse than Louis XVI, who was born to the throne and born into a long history of elitism, whereas Macron was voted in, by the French people, on the promise of helping the “homme de la rue,” all how a populist would. But, clearly Macron is a terrible populist since he failed to remember the most important aspect of populism, the love and support of the people that must be maintained even after one has seized power.