In 2017, Jean-Luc Mélenchon, coming 4th of the first round of the presidential election, chose not to issue a voting recommendation for the second round between Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen. In 2022, a notable development occurred: the leader of «La France Insoumise», without explicitly calling to vote for Macron, declared «not a single vote must go to Marine Le Pen».
How to explain the 2017 stance? Largely by electoral or electorally motivated concerns. Indeed, for a long time, analysts felt that a large part of the working-class electorate could easily switch from LFI to the RN and vice versa. At the time, indeed, both parties and both leaders were fully playing their tribunician role of challenging the established order and denouncing the establishment. That is no longer the case.
For the RN, power is within reach. Respectability at the expense of its tribune-like role
Indeed, it is obvious that the more the closer the RN gets to power, the more it seeks above all to reassure and provide guarantees of respectability.
Opinion polls predicting he will win around 30% of the vote in the European elections, a near-absolute majority in the event of snap general elections, and Marine Le Pen in a neck-and-neck race in the second round of the presidential election, regardless of the opponent, are all consistent indicators. Other things being equal, the RN and its President should capture power.
Erase the image of antisemitism, which is closely linked to Jean-Marie Le Pen (despite what Jordan Bardella) and the FN might say, was a priority. The march against antisemitism co-organised by Yaël Braun-Pivet and Gérard Larcher on 12 November 2023 did nothing to stem this scourge. Nevertheless, she has handed on a silver platter a guarantee of respectability to the National Rally as it had wished and scarcely dared hope. In the transition from the FN to the RN, the immigrant, already vilified, now becomes the sole scapegoat. Nevertheless, what the RN has gained in respectability, it has also lost in tribunician function.
The other priority was to get rid of the Russian loan, which had become toxic ever since Putin invaded Ukraine and revealed a nature that only the oblivious or those with ulterior motives sought to deny... It's done! It is true that it was all the more necessary to act quickly and forcefully because the RN's proposed commission of inquiry into foreign interference had backfired on it highlighting its Putinist closeness. The party had shot itself in the foot.
The Meloni model chosen by Jordan Bardella has very significantly shifted the RN's foreign policy line. From now on, the United States and NATO are no longer enemies and French foreign policy must be pro-Western rather than independent. The tragic events in Gaza and the missteps of French diplomacy did not give rise to criticism; on the contrary, support for Israel, seen as the vanguard of the West, was frank and French diplomatic bandwagoning went largely unpunished by criticism. Is this not a major error in a domain where Emmanuel Macron will never have managed to uphold France's «status»?
While Italians attach only relative importance to their foreign policy, the French are keen for France to continue, or rather start once again one day, to express a singular voice and thus have weight in major world affairs. Perhaps this is Jordan Bardella's first major mistake...
The collapse of NUPES and the disputed personality of the LFI leader push the prospect of winning power further away
The collapse of the NUPES, particularly during the dramatic events in Gaza, makes the prospect of LFI and its leader coming to power highly improbable. Consequently, their political strategy is the exact opposite of the RN's; the tribune function and its corollary, outrageous behaviour, are running at full tilt.
LFI's stance on Gaza will have been striking within, and running counter to, the vast majority of the French political class. But with a foundational error that disrupted the righteous condemnation of the war crimes committed. Indeed, the events of 7 October whatever the number of casualties (even scaled down and stripped of several fake news stories that keep popping up) are indeed terrorist acts. Innocent victims perished, struck down blindly because they happened to be there at the wrong time. That is the very definition of terrorism. An independent commission will have to work to establish the truth of the events of this tragic day and the historians will do their work. For the moment, we only have the version documented by Israel. Bishop Vesco, Archbishop of Algiers, will express an excellent analysis of 7 October in a column: Bishop Jean-Paul Vesco: «The barbaric violence of Hamas is without excuse, but it is not without cause» (la-croix.com
This initial error will have, for many, made inaudible the correct discourse on the totally disproportionate nature of the Israeli response, the denunciation of war crimes, of orchestrated famine, and of a number of civilians, particularly children, massacred for no reason. When Jean-Luc Mélenchon stated that it was not Jews but Israelis who were being targeted, provoking the incomprehension of Benjamin Duhamel himself trapped in his certainties[1], the clinical analysis was accurate but inaudible. The occupying power and not a religion.
Furthermore, Jean-Luc Mélenchon's past or baggage on the international stage did not work in his favour, From support for Chavez-Maduro when they were firing live ammunition at their own people to a marked sympathy for Putin, Jean-Luc Mélenchon has constantly zigzagged between variable-geometry principles. Lastly, his relationship with Islam and the Arab world is ambiguous. Often under the guise of good intentions, no distinction is made between Islam and Islamism, between Arabs and Muslims caught up in overly globalising and reductionist notions.
It is regrettable that the defence of the Palestinian cause and of respect for international law has been left solely to LFI, with the exception of a few interventions by Dominique de Villepin. If there were still a Jacques Chirac of this world and a still-active Chirac-style right wing, things would have been different.
The European programme of the two courses will only have relative importance
To return to the European elections, Jordan Bardella is crushing the contest, mastering his communication, brushing off the incessant attacks from Renaissance elected officials which only end up strengthening him. Indeed, he is benefiting from strong anti-Macron momentum.
The La France Insoumise lead candidate, Manon Aubry does not have the same media exposure and the left is deeply divided.
One thing is certain, it is not the «European programme» of the two parties that will motivate votes in their favour. For the RN, it is about embodying opposition to federalism, which is seen as a deterrent and logically equated with Macronism. At the same time, appearing less provocative and more realistic than «Reconquête» and, finally, much more useful than LR is not out of reach.
For LFI, it is about capitalising on the electorate that legitimately felt disgust and aversion towards those who supported a massacre, an organised famine and the position of the International Court of Justice ordering Israel to take measures to prevent genocide in Gaza. On the left, LFI is the only party to have adopted this clear and coherent position, the limitations of which we have nevertheless explained.
A score above 30% would be a resounding success for the RN, and below 25% a failure. A score below 10% would be a rebuff for LFI, which would be all the more stinging if the PS list were to finish ahead of it.
[1]BFM, 28 January 2024
French 
English 
Chinese 
Arabic