On the eve of the second round of snap parliamentary elections on Sunday, July 7, only one party remains in a position to win an absolute majority in the Assemblée Nationale and the consequent direct possibility of governing France, without having to engage in negotiations: the Rassemblement National (RN, far right). As in other countries, the far right, with its ideology based on discrimination, stigmatization and the rejection of whole sections of the population, remains more than ever the major threat dominating our political landscape.

To this threat, other parties have opposed, as they did many times in the past, a united republican front. The first effect of this was a massive wave of withdrawals by the worst-placed candidates in the many three-way elections resulting from the first round, to prevent the election of an RN representative. This is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition to preserve us from the worst.

President Emmanuel Macron's irresponsible decision to dissolve the Assemblée Nationale, on the evening of his defeat in the European elections, will be resolved in the polling stations of the 501 constituencies still in the race: It is now up to voters to make up their minds. The only way to oppose the far right is to vote for the candidate who stands against the RN or its auxiliaries, whatever their political affiliation.

Fear of emptiness

Let us wish that enough of our fellow citizens will mobilize to not only deny the RN and its allies an absolute majority, but also to push the number of far-right MPs as far away as possible from the 289-seat threshold. And therefore as far away as possible from the temptation of a coalition with the lawmakers of what's left of the right, notably those of Les Républicains (LR), who have written yet another chapter in the long story of their moral decline by refusing to offer reciprocity to left-wing candidates who have withdrawn in their favor.

Let us hope that these voters won't be distracted by precarious alternative coalition schemes that were denied as quickly as they were evoked, notably by a government that is in a state of desperation since its predictable defeat in the first round, and now gripped by the fear of emptiness. These questions can only be seriously addressed once the main danger has been averted.

Let us count on the fact that voters won't be demobilized by seat projections, the limits of which are well known. Vote transfer is far too fragile a mechanism to be anticipated with any precision in such a large number of constituencies, each with its own particular situation. This is especially true after a first-round campaign so brief that it was reduced to its most trivial terms: posturing, anathemas and caricatures. The sharp rise in voter turnout in the first round can also cloud estimates.

Let's not be fooled

But, above all, let us not allow ourselves to be fooled by the rhetoric that presents these withdrawals as denials of democracy, as "unnatural choices" motivated solely by partisan reasoning, as Marine Le Pen put it earlier this week. Whatever she may think, these decisions are in keeping with the republican nature of the parties that made them. Whatever the distance between the political options, they correspond to a common conception of our democracy, its identity, its history, and what is incompatible with it.

Let us not be fooled either by those who would lead us to believe that it was "the French people" as a whole, or "the vast majority of its citizens" – to quote the Russian Foreign Ministry in its statement of support for the RN, published on Wednesday on X – who voted for the far right on June 30. However massive and unprecedented, the 9.6 million votes cast for Le Pen's party represent only a fraction of the electorate, to which must also be subtracted the almost 35% abstention rate. The Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP), which brings together left-wing parties, lost by just 1 million votes.

"Populism is above all a strategy which consists, for a political party, in claiming to represent the 'real people,'" explained Jan-Werner Müller, German philosopher and specialist in these movements, in a June 29 interview with Le Monde. One of its components is "the exclusion from the people of all individuals who do not correspond to the symbolic definition of the 'true people,' such as foreigners, minorities or opponents." The condemnation of the republican front against the far right, seen as a manifestation of a "system" inherently hostile to the expression of popular will, is one of the first intimidation maneuvers used to establish this exclusion. It is as old as the first political successes of the Le Pen family's party in the 1980s. On Sunday evening, the section of the population that will cast its vote to block the far right will be just as legitimate as that which will choose to confirm its vote in favor of the RN.

Historical role

To describe the effects on our democracy of this populist strategy of the French far right, should it seize power, commentators often draw a comparison with the Hungary of Prime Minister Viktor Orban, one of Marine Le Pen's inspirations. Indeed, the erosion of press freedom, the weakening of institutions, attacks on minorities and the weakening of the rule of law are all to be feared. But, as we wrote before the 2022 presidential election, this parallel with a nation of 10 million inhabitants is far too narrow to describe the worldwide deflagration that our country's tipping over to the side of illiberalism would represent. As a nuclear power with a seat on the UN Security Council and a pillar of European construction, France is not Hungary.

It is the risk of such a shift, the prospect of which grips most Western governments with dread, that needs to be taken into account before the vote on July 7. And without overestimating Macron's ability to defend his authority in the field of international relations. Even before the first round of voting, Le Pen engaged in a power struggle with the president on the subject, suggesting that the far right intends to firmly influence our foreign policy.

This would be as violent a shock as the unraveling of our institutions and the implementation of discriminatory policies at the domestic level. France could be failing not only in its historic role in the concert of nations but also in its alliances and its duties of solidarity, at a time when war is once again raging in Europe following Russia's aggression against Ukraine.

Suspicions of collusion with Russia

On our continent, at least two heads of state are on the lookout for this upheaval. Orban, of course, who would like to count on strong support to turn the tide within the European Union – an alliance of interests that would eventually collapse under the weight of national egotisms. And above all, Vladimir Putin, to whom Le Pen is linked by multiple declarations of admiration and a bank loan. The Russian president has just sent a message of support through his Ministry of Foreign Affairs, reinforcing suspicions of collusion. The RN leader is doing her utmost to dispel them, highlighting her recent conversion to solidarity with Ukraine, albeit limited by red lines that would hamper our ability to react should Russia gain the upper hand militarily.

This sign from Moscow, like the racist record and statements of so many RN candidates, reveals the danger our country would be in if it were to lose the thread of its history. The same goes for its future, for there is another battle in which France is sure to defect if the far right is in a position to decide: that of the climate. In this area, the RN's positions are diametrically opposed to the cooperation, cross-border solidarity and universalism needed to tackle the current catastrophe. Nowhere has the far right been able to offer a solution to the difficulties of its contemporaries. Everywhere, always, it has ended up adding to the world's woes.