Legitimate skepticism accompanied news of the summit meeting organized on Wednesday, August 30, at the Maison d'Education de la Légion d'Honneur in the northern Paris suburb of Saint-Denis. In the presence of the prime minister and the presidents of the three assemblies (Assemblée Nationale, Sénat, and the Economic, Social and Environmental Council), the French president will attempt to convince the representatives of the 11 parties represented in Parliament that, despite the tensions that reign there, it is possible to find some common ground in the service of the French people between now and the end of his second presidential term. If this is the case, the proposals that emerge are likely to lead to bills, some of which could be put to a referendum.
This is not the first time that Emmanuel Macron has chased consensus. Over the past six years, he has become the president of crises and has repeatedly invoked the spirit of the National Council of the Resistance (CNR), which in 1944 succeeded in building a recovery program across all divides, the traces of which the country still bears. But even when circumstances lent themselves to unity, as was the case during the Covid-19 pandemic, he was unable to overcome the mistrust of his opponents, who criticized him for being too rigid, even "Jupiter-like". Since June 2022, the political climate has hardened further, with the loss of an absolute majority in the Assemblée Nationale and strong opposition to Macron's pension reform bill.
The announcement by the left that it would attend the meeting but boycott the dinner sums up the suspicious climate of these Saint-Denis meetings, which are unlikely to resemble the "major political initiative" envisaged by Macron. But, put into perspective, the meeting could be undeniably useful. Firstly, with the world undergoing upheaval, due in particular to an intensifying climate crisis, France can't afford the luxury of being idle for four years. Secondly, public action has been stumbling for years, whatever the political color of those in power, over structural problems that have been feeding the democratic crisis and the rise of the far right. These include the loss of efficiency in public action and the complexity of territorial organization, in particular. And lastly, the urban riots at the beginning of the summer highlighted the extent of the national rift, without a single party having seen fit, to date, to publicly draw concrete lessons from this trauma.
In this context, none of those who oppose Macron will risk leaving their chair empty, and that's a good thing. Devoting an afternoon and an evening to debating behind closed doors such weighty subjects as integration, education, authority, citizenship and institutions is the bare minimum, given what's at stake. Nevertheless, the fear of being trapped by a presidential maneuver is strong. The left wants a referendum to abolish pension reform, the right a popular consultation to restrict immigration, which it blames for the summer's violence.
If Macron can't find the right words to ease the tension, if he doesn't sincerely listen to stimulate debate and bring out more unifying proposals, the meeting will be a failure. It will resemble nothing more than a blatant chase after the right, whose votes he is seeking in Parliament.
Translation of an original article published in French on lemonde.fr; the publisher may only be liable for the French version.