The Olympic year carried on alongside a political drama in France that kept grabbing headlines. The country found itself amid a contentious debate sparked by Emmanuel Macron’s controversial move to call early parliamentary elections. Since July 7, a polarized parliament—left, far right, and centrists—has been locked in a battle over who should lead the government and who should hold the prime minister’s seat. Macron himself has become a destabilizing factor, flipping between positions and leaving observers unsure of the next move.
Impeachment threats entered the conversation as a realistic possibility, and there was still no clear path out of the impasse. The dispute intensified after the second round of elections when the New Popular Front, a broad left coalition, secured a narrow victory. A two-week stall and two failed attempts to form a coalition followed, and MP Lucie Caste was proposed as prime minister, only to be rejected by Macron. Initially he suggested delaying any government change until after the Olympic Games; once the games ended and negotiations resumed, he again rejected Caste, arguing that the government would not endure a long tenure.
From the left, anger grew. The coalition’s leader, the far-left France Unconquered, urged Macron to appoint a prime minister to the majority bloc and warned of impeachment if he refused. On August 31, the party formally launched impeachment proceedings and sought broader support among other political forces.
Under Article 68 of the French constitution, a president can be removed from office if he fails to fulfill his duties. Members of Unconquered France argued that Macron’s refusal to recognize the election results and to appoint a prime minister for the winning coalition fits this constitutional criterion.
Though the argument seems sound on paper, it faces harsh political reality. France operates under a strong presidential mandate, and impeaching a president would require navigating a labyrinth of legal steps and wide political consensus—an arduous, system-wide process.
The procedure begins with an initiating group of deputies proposing impeachment. The proposal is reviewed by the bureau and the National Assembly legal commission. If pursued, the National Assembly must vote with a two-thirds majority. The Senate then repeats the process in two commissions before both houses convene a joint, high-stakes session to decide. If two-thirds of both chambers back the move, impeachment proceeds to a final joint vote. Only then could Macron be removed from office. In short, achieving impeachment calls for broad, cross-cutting support across the parliament.
Today, the National Assembly is deeply unsettled, while the Senate is largely controlled by moderates loyal to Macron. With such a divide, any agreement remains elusive. Even within New Popular Front circles, many are wary of risking Macron’s resignation. There is a strong chance that the impeachment bid will stall before reaching a formal vote.
A more likely outcome could be that Macron appoints a prime minister he favors, a move that underscores the centrality of the presidency in the French system. The president has the ultimate power to name the head of government, and that choice does not need to come from the largest faction or even from parliament at large.
Today, two candidates have emerged as possibilities. The first is Bernard Cazeneuve, a Socialist who served as prime minister under François Hollande. The second is Xavier Bertrand, a figure from the center-right Republicans who has held multiple ministerial roles under Jacques Chirac and Nicolas Sarkozy and now leads the Hauts-de-France regional council. At the time of reporting, Macron had shown openness to Bertrand but had almost decided on Cazeneuve the day before. His hesitation is understandable: whichever candidate is chosen, opposition from MPs could topple the government with a vote of no confidence. The left remains wary of Cazeneuve, while Bertrand’s potential government faces pressure from the far-right National Rally, and neither faction seems ready to grant the president a calm, unchallenged tenure.
In the past, disputes were settled through straightforward alignment between the president and the party with parliamentary majority. Today, France faces a rare, multi-faction stalemate without a clear path to resolution. The constitution does not plainly answer how to escape such a deadlock, adding to the sense of political gridlock.
Macron’s best chance to end the strife would require splitting the New Popular Front and drawing moderate forces from both the left and the right into a centrist coalition. Achieving that would demand significant compromises and strategic maneuvering. Until then, political chaos could persist, shaping France’s governance for the foreseeable future.
The discussion above reflects a crucial analysis of the current political climate and its potential consequences for France’s leadership and policy direction.