Ufo of politics, Emmanuel Macron had a double merit, that of putting down the system of parties and "at the same time" to demonstrate by the facts that he did not have the adequate provisions to be in ability to govern.
The end of a world
His narcissistic instinct made him identify, not without the help of interested allies, that a breathtaking French policy was playing out with a historic opportunity to change the model to take over. The election remains a sale and, as in negotiations where the sellers' bargain predominates, there is no guarantee of future delivery. And this is where the Macron phenomenon gets bogged down and stops: the media shows are in politics what military parades are in the war: the more money and attention they spend, the more they are to be feared that they hide a serious difficulty in going to practice.
While our elites phosphores in all directions to resuscitate the parties, which they believe they only go through a disappointment, the time is in review and listening to an authentic renewal.
The buffoons preferred to kings
What happened during this presidential election is far from being cyclical. It is a cycle of two centuries that comes to an end suddenly, after indefinitely seeking variations to subsist. The French Revolution has replaced the intelligence of action, which was jammed by the intelligence of ideas, which paralyzes it. For one hundred and fifty years, regimes have succeeded one another without succeeding in making political action an effective and above all sustainable practice. The Restoration wanted to resurrect the privileges instead of giving life back to a new and dynamic form of royal discernment. The two empires thought they could protect themselves from the future by enclosing it in advance in an exhaustive code: the characteristic of the unexpected, like the Germans facing the Maginot line, is to circumvent the existing, even if it is solid. Lastly, the republics have put the presumed force of future devices on the volume of debates: the Third and Fourth Republic have, at this game, very quickly out of breath.
The Fifth Republic, of monarchical inspiration, had the opportunity to give a new stamp to this exercise of the power become the poor relation of the political life (the only conquest of the power occupying the whole space). Three errors were nevertheless fatal to him. The first choice of direct universal suffrage in 1962, which, instead of appointing on a "working" criteria a president really in charge, has created an emotional reign, which, with the advent of the media, promotes jesters. rather than kings.
The political apparatus has become a communication organ
The almost systematic practice of the referendum, then, by General de Gaulle, and especially in the critical moments when the latter fled the necessary discernments (Algerian war, May 68, ...), endorsed the preference left to the quantitative logics on the political lucidity and courage; subsequently, seeking to avoid the risky game of the referendum that was fatal to the general, this attitude was commuted into a successful and massive practice of smokescreen communication to compensate for the real ability to deal with problems. Finally, the recent choice of the quinquennium, synchronized with a national assembly reduced to being a shadow of the executive (see for that the massive arrival of incompetent elected on the only name of Emmanuel Macron), made the apparatus policy a short-term communication body.
After selling ideas or staggered postures to grab the attention of an election, we vote a few to give the impression that the program is being honored. The Fifth Republic thus became not an institution conducive to a government that lasts but a close device around a president-show that is more reminiscent of a market seller than a great cook.
A massive casting error
The worst is that he is not alone to be next to the cast: our politico-media device has made an elite completely different from the needs of the country. If politics is a jungle we could say that we have been making orders for decades an unlikely alliance of Tartarins (Tarascon) and botanists. The first sell the jungle without knowing how to cross it, the others know how to describe it without knowing how to confront it. It is adventurers that we need, that is to say, people capable of doing the only thing that is ultimately useful in the face of danger: discerning the decisions to be made and leading them with pragmatism in contact with events.
As we are well aware, not only are the ideas we see debating not prioritized in relation to the everyday issues of French life (is this really the time to divide the French on the PMA while unemployment and terrorism are far from to be eradicated?), but those who come to defend or fight them are often the least able to govern: Zemmour or Attali, schiappa or Bellamy are hardly calibrated for power and some of them do not seek it. The most lucid know that the correctness of ideas rests in their completeness whereas the rightness of the action consists in its simplicity: the objective of the first is to convince, that of the second, to function.
Debating the accessory
Politics is a relative science, evolving, essentially rooted in the daily difficulty of conducting business, whether strategic or routine. In the end, it has three concerns: the establishment of the real conditions of security (and with it a credible and coordinated defense, police and justice system), the establishment of conditions for prosperity (with the appropriate flexibility to market evolutions more than an exhaustiveness of inoperative devices), establishing the conditions for spiritual fulfillment that does not disavow the cultural heritage.
As long as these three objectives are not honored, that is to say daily piloted until success, the rest is superfluous. Our policy today is somehow comparable to a company that would have entrusted the destiny of its growth to its works council and who, unable to achieve growth, would debate endlessly the new distributor of drinks on the floor or discounts offered to Eurodisney for children of employees.
To get out of sterile ideological cleavages
The time has come to build a political force that no longer rests on an ideological affiliation but on a real capacity to do so. What must prevail in this choice is not the agreement of ideas but the reality of personalities. The natural leaders have long since fled the political space for a simple reason: a leader expects the gravity of events to summon him to make his contribution and believe in its legitimacy. He does not, like our professional commentators, talk about every event that happens: he delegates his management as much as possible by preparing the time after. He lives in the difficulties of a daily intelligence of coordination and action. He does not devote his energy to making laws which, by dint of wanting to regulate the smallest details, build "ships in Greek creeks", that is to say, unemployable devices, unable to access reality as the marine superstructure, offshore. Rather, he is at best able to reduce them to their executable portion, at worst, to accommodate them day by day for them to produce results.
The parties lost the war
It's not a battle that the parties have lost, it's a war. The new war is the one that will consist, for each citizen, to seek in his environment the natural and legitimate leader who works in silence. Mandela or Gandhi were silent for a long time before, by the density of what they embodied, a popular movement came to call them to power. Closer to home, not so long ago, the Vendée war gave us an inspiring testimony: not one of its leaders, however remarkable, has come forward. It is the peasants who, aware of imminent danger, have gone to fetch them (some, like Charette, under their bed), to entrust their destiny to them. Napoleon called the Vendée "a people of giants". Our resistance fighters from inside have, in 40, followed suit.
The media swell creates the conditions of misfortune
Without waging war, of course, with the means of communication that we have, we have in our hands the possibility of renewing politics through an operational rather than an emotional, pragmatic rather ideological approach. We have the ability to escape the media swell that creates the conditions for our own misfortune, that of a hope that is lost in the illusion of words. We can pre-designate our future candidates by a common sense observation that emanates from our daily lives. The question then will no longer be the hysterical affiliation to the right or the left (and the absurd detestation of the neighbor, in spite of its potentialities, on the sole basis of his ideas) but the capacity to occupy the future space of a presence of discernment and, behind, to use appropriately the incredible talents that exist in France.