欧洲议会选举何以导致法国政治危机

2024 is a rare election year in the world. So,the European Parliament elections are not the focus of the world.However, the results of the June 9 election triggered a political earthquake in France: the far-right National Rally party won twice the vote rate over the second-place ruling party.Just an hour later, President Macron announced the dissolution of National Assembly and new elections, the first time in 27 years.France is not only a core country of the European Union, but also a world power. The election results and the sudden and extraordinary political measures immediately shocked the world.

The subsequent elections produced extremely complex and unprecedented results:First, the three major political party alliances have almost the same number of seats, and no political force can form a cabinet alone.

Second, the left-wing alliance including far-left party has become the largest political force in National Assembly , with the far-left“La France Insoumise” having the most seats.

Third, although the far-right National Rally and its allies failed to win the most seats in the National Assembly due to the obstruction of the so-called “Republican Alliance”, the National Rally itself became the largest single party and the only party with more than 100 seats.

Fourth, extreme political forces have become the mainstream, traditional political parties and middle forces have become a minority, and French politics has become not only fragmented but also extreme.

In this case, a multi-party coalition similar to Germany should be the only option.

But France has never had such a political culture of compromise: Macron’s ruling party coalition explicitly excludes cooperation with the far left and far right.The traditional right-wing party decided to maintain their independence and not cooperate with any one. The far left and far right were completely hostile – MPs from both sides even refused to shake hands.

This means that it will be difficult for France to form a government. So it is no surprise that the record of the Fifth Republic being able to form a government within nine days after the legislative election was easily broken.What is even more serious is that even if a government is formed, it will be a minority government and once again“cohabitation”. It is not only difficult to operate, but also extremely unstable and easily overthrown.

“Cohabitation”is a political term unique to France, which means that the president and prime minister come from different political parties. It can resolve political deadlock, but it is difficult to govern effectively.

For this reason, in 2000, President Chirac, who had personally experienced two painful“Cohabitation”, revised the constitution and changed the presidential term to five years to coincide with parliamentary elections.Because public opinion does not change in the short term, the same party often wins presidential and legislative elections, thus solving this problem institutionally.However, now that Macron’s big gamble in response to the results of the European Parliament elections has turned into a political crisis, he is also lame and his political career has come to an end.

Why is Macron taking a big political gamble?

Macron quickly dissolved Parliament an hour after the results of the European Parliament elections were announced, indicating that this was a well-prepared and considered move.After all, this election result is consistent with long-term opinion polls, and all parties have already had psychological expectations and countermeasures.Later, the media also revealed that Macron had already discussed this plan with a few core decision-making members.

Throughout the history of the Fifth Republic, it was not uncommon for a president to dissolve the National Assembly, and this was the sixth time.

The main reason is to get out of unfavorable situations or break political deadlock.

For example, when the“May 68” occurred in France , President de Gaulle responded to the crisis in this way.For Macron, he is also trying to get rid of two disadvantages.First, although his party alliance won the most seats in the National Assembly in 2022, it did not win a majority.Second, the European Parliament election was a disastrous defeat.Both of these factors have affected his political status and power, especially the European Parliament elections, which have directly shaken his power base for the remaining three years.

If he can win the new legislative election, he will not only get out of trouble, but also effectively curb challenges to him inside and outside the party, and it will also affect the 2027 presidential election to a certain extent. Many people support candidates of Renaissance in order to avoid the “Cohabitation” again. Even if the Renaissance fails to win the presidential election, unless the new president dissolves the National Assembly again, it can still control executive and legislative power, which is equivalent to extending the political life of Macron and the his party.

As for the results of the new legislative elections, Macron has carefully calculated.

First, in the previous five times when the National Assembly was dissolved, the president won four times. Macron is naturally confident that he can use this means to achieve his goal. In other words, since the Renaissance failed to pass half of the National Assembly in 2022, Macron has been deliberately making changes. This European Parliament election gives him an excuse.

Secondly, the dissolution of the National Assembly was triggered by the National Rally’s victory. It can shape the image of Macron’s confrontation with the National Rally, and this election can also be positioned as a confrontation between them. Macron’s political foundation is not deep. The key reason why he was able to win the presidential election twice was that his opponent was the National Rally.

What is particularly coincidental is that before his announcement, the National Rally had already proposed to dissolve the National Assembly, further strengthening the antagonistic image of Macron and the National Rally, which is equivalent to helping Macron. This may be a precise judgment by the Macron camp, or it may be that the opponent’s intentions were known in advance through technical means.

Third, Macron’s understanding of the psychology of the French people. There is a considerable distance between the European Parliament elections and France’s internal affairs. People can use the elections to express their dissatisfaction with the ruling party and give it a lesson without worrying about the negative impact on the politics of their country.However, the National Assembly election is related to France’s own internal politics, so the people need to be much more cautious, and high turnout is not good for far-right parties. The French stock market, euro and national debt all fell the next day. This was not directly related to the European Parliament election, but was caused by the dissolution of the National Assembly, which was a reaction to the people’s psychology.

Obviously, the French people do not want political turmoil, so they do not want the “Cohabitation” again,in particula with National Rally.

After all, it has been 27 years since there has been an abnormal political incident involving the dissolution of the National Assembly, which has had a considerable impact on French society and the people. The reason for the dissolution of the National Assembly is related to the National Alliance.

In addition, the date of the National Assembly elections announced by Macron is also very intriguing: only 19 days before the Paris Olympics. If the National Rally wins more than half of the seats, it will become prime minister and form a cabinet. However, in an occasion that attracts global attention like the Olympic Games, the appearance of a far-right political figure is obviously difficult for most people in France to accept.

Fourth, the French National Assembly is a two-round election, and it is very unlikely that the National Rally will become the largest party or have a majority. Because no political party is willing to ally with it, it cannot win so many seats on its own. After all, its current support rate is about 30%. As long as the National Rally’s seats decline, it can be regarded as Macron’s success. It can prove that the public’s support for the National Rally at the domestic political level is quite limited.

But Macron clearly misjudged not only public opinion but also the resilience of the system.

The institutional crisis behind the failure of the big gamble

Macron’s gamble failed because neither of his goals were achieved:First, his party alliance can at least maintain its position as the largest party in the National Assembly before the election. If it can still win more than half, it will be a big victory. Second, the seats of far-right parties have declined.

What Macron does not want to see even more is that although the extreme right and its alliance were ultimately prevented from becoming the largest party in the National Assembly, the biggest beneficiary was the left-wing alliance that included the extreme left. As the entire left advocates the abolition of retirement system reform, and the far left also wants to significantly increase the minimum wage, freeze prices and resume the collection of rich taxes, this will not only end all the achievements of Macron’s seven years in power, but will also cause serious damage to the French economy. The left-wing alliance won the most seats and was not easy to compromise on policy. The legislative elections actually had the second-worst outcome.

The failure of Macron’s political gamble is not an isolated case in the West. British Prime Minister Cameron’s political gamble in 2016 also ended in disastrous failure. This is both unique to France and common to the West.

There are many perspectives for understanding French political phenomena. For example, from the perspective of civilization, Anglo-Saxon countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and Australia, whether presidential or parliamentary systems, tend to form a stable monopolistic two-party system, and other small parties are often just foils. Even when extreme left or right political forces emerge, they tend to establish themselves within the two traditional parties rather than forming independent parties.For example, the right-wing Republican Party in the United States has the far-right Tea Party, and the left-wing Democratic Party also has the far-left Sanders.

Latin nations such as France, Italy, and Spain tend to form decentralized multi-party systems. In France’s Third and Fourth Republics, the government’s lifespan was no more than half a year at most, and as short as a month, a week, or even a day. For this reason, de Gaulle tried to change this situation by establishing the Fifth Republic with strong administrative power and weak parliament.

But today’s Fifth Republic shows that the civilization gene is still stronger: after three “Cohabitation” in the 1980s and 1990s, in 2017 the traditional left-right parties, the Socialist Party and the Republicans, which had long taken turns in power, began to be marginalized–for the first time, no party could enter second round. By the 2022 presidential election, these two parties will not even reach the 5% threshold, and are actually in a bubble. In the legislative elections of the same year, for the first time, no party could win a majority, and the political situation of the extreme left and the extreme right took shape. In 2024, the political power of the extreme left and right continued to increase significantly, and the Fifth Republic is undergoing an unprecedented fragmentation into the Fourth Republic.

If we look at the political system, it reflects the institutional crisis not only in France but also in the entire West.

As mentioned above, the disorganization of the French system began as early as the 1980s and has evolved step by step until today. During this period, President Chirac made major efforts to amend the constitution, and successfully passed through the first terms of Sarkozy, Hollande and Macron, but in the end, worse results occurred.A major error in judgment made by Macron this time was that he believed that the safety valve of the French system was still effective: to prevent extreme populists from gaining power, legislative and presidential elections are held in a two-round system.

Indeed, at least until the 2022 election, this safety valve is still working well. For example, in the 2017 presidential election, the far-right candidate Le Pen received only 33.9% of the vote, which was far lower than that of a normal political party. In the subsequent legislative elections, although the National Rally was able to lead in 216 constituencies in the first round, it only won 8 seats in the second round, and in the 2012 legislative election, it won only 2 seats. But a sudden change occurred in 2022: Le Pen won more than 41% of the vote in the presidential election! In the legislative election, it won 88 seats, surpassing the traditional right-wing the Republicans born in de Gaulle! Obviously, France’s political foundation has been completely changed, and the support gained by extreme political forces has been able to break through institutional barriers.

But Macron ignored this signal, so his big gamble in the context of a National Rally victory was bound to fail.

The political disorder in the United States also appeared as early as the 2000 election dispute: Clinton’s eight years of excellent governance did not help the party win.This marks the loss of the system’s function of “rewarding the good and punishing the bad” that existed at least twelve years ago during the Reagan era.

Then came two wrong wars and a financial crisis in the George W. Bush era, until Trump was elected president in 2016, the Republican Party did not recognize the election results in the 2020 election, the occupation of Congress, and the conviction of the first former president in 2024 , the political consensus and the low line were further broken. Especially in election year, when opposition party candidates are found guilty and subsequently assassinated, American politics is becoming increasingly Third World-oriented.

From a global perspective, political changes in France are common to the entire West.

First, after the West entered the era of mass democracy with one person, one vote, the quality and origin of voters became increasingly important factors in elections.

The previous Brexit, Trump’s victory, the rapid rise of far-right parties in Europe, and today’s European Parliament and French parliamentary elections are all due to this reason.

The far-right National Alliance is the single largest party in the National Assembly. Its supporters mainly come from workers, people with low education, rural areas, small towns, and young people. The voting rate for it was as high as over 50% among workers and those with a high school education or below. In addition, the support rate among employees also exceeds 40%, and the support rate among high school graduates also reaches 32%. The support rate of the far right among young people, rural areas, and small towns is also far ahead of other political parties. This is the same as Trump supporters.

As for the New Popular Front, which includes far-left party, it received more than 60% of the Muslim votes. France is a Catholic country, and Muslims mainly come from immigrants. In the 2022 presidential election, the far-left candidate Mélenchon received 70% of the Muslim votes and failed to advance to the second round with only a 1.2% gap. Due to the rapid changes in the racial structure, Muslim votes will determine who reaches the second round of the 2027 presidential election.

A similar phenomenon exists in the United States. Obama received 95% and 93% of the African-American vote and the vast majority of Latinos and Asians in his two campaigns respectively, but only 39% of whites voted for him in 2012.In the 2016 election, Trump won the support of the majority of whites, while Hillary won the majority of votes from ethnic minorities. In 2020, Biden received 92% of the African-American votes.In other words, either many voters no longer vote based on the candidate’s policies, ideas and abilities – which are the basis for the good operation of Western democratic politics, or it shows the racial opposition in the United States from a political level.

However, in any country, only a small number of people are highly educated, live in big cities, and work in high-paying management positions. The outcome of the election is decided by the vast majority of ordinary people who only care about their own immediate interests.At present, the birth rate of native ethnic groups in Europe and America is very low, and only immigrants with high birth rates can be introduced. The rapidly changing racial structure will inevitably be reflected in politics. This has become the main reason for the rapid rise of far-right political forces in Europe and the United States.

In fact, Western academic circles have long been aware of the differences between people in wealth and education.

British political scientist J.S Mill pointed out in his famous book “Considerations on Representative Government”:Every person who performs such high-level duties is allowed to have two or more votes.It just goes against the concept of equality for all and cannot be implemented.

Over the past five hundred years, the West’s rise and fall coincided with the implementation of mass democracy. This is no coincidence.

Secondly, politics becomes extreme and unable to compromise.

Europe today is as politically polarized as the United States. France’s far left and far right are completely hostile.

President Macron has stated that he will never cooperate with the extreme left or right, saying that the policies of these two political parties will lead to civil war and destroy the French economy.The three major political party alliances in the National Assembly have no consensus on the country’s development and future. They all believe that the other party will lead the country into the abyss.

Since the Obama era, political polarization and social divisions have worsened in the United States. In the Trump era, they have escalated rapidly.White house spokesman sanders and her friends went out for dinner and were kicked out by the restaurant owner even though their order was already on the table. The reason was that she worked for and defended an “inhumane and immoral” government.During the Biden administration, Republican supporters broke into Speaker Pelosi’s home and tried to take her hostage. Her husband, who was home alone, was injured by him with a hammer.

At the Constitutional Convention of the United States, someone asked: “Mr. Madison, can you tell us what the principles of the American government would be?”. He replied: “There are three principles: compromise, compromise, compromise.”

It’s just that the compromise is based on the basic consensus of all political forces. This is also a prerequisite for the operation of Western democratic systems. Otherwise, it will either lead to a civil war similar to the United States, or the balance of power will lead to today’s veto politics.

It should be pointed out that during the American Civil War, universal suffrage had not yet been implemented, and politics was just a game between elites. But differences can still only be resolved through war,not to mention Europe and the United States today.

From this historical logic, it is inevitable that the Republican Party will not recognize the election results and its supporters will occupy Congress in the 2020 U.S. election.

Finally, the above two characteristics make reform in Europe and the United States very difficult and costly today. It has almost reached the point where it is difficult to reform and effectively govern.

To be fair, Macron, who has been in power for seven years, is unpopular not because of his incompetence but because of his courage to reform.

There were two large-scale nationwide protests during his tenure: one was the yellow vest movement triggered by a slight increase in fuel tax – only equivalent to RMB 50 cents. The second reason is the reform of the retirement system.

The Yellow Vest Movement was the second largest social conflict in the history of the Fifth Republic, and it was extremely violent, but the direct cause was only such a small price adjustment.

After the movement broke out, major opposition parties got involved for their own political interests and even justified the violence: either blaming the government for causing the violence, or directly praising the violence.

After Macron entered his second term, there was no electoral pressure. He pushed for retirement system reform despite opposition from all parties.He cited the constitution and directly passed the retirement reform plan into law without a vote by the National Assembly, showing very firm determination.But after the legislative election, both the extreme left and the extreme right expressed their intention to repeal this reform. France has returned to the starting point after paying huge political and social costs.

So fundamentally, the European Parliament elections are just the trigger, and the real cause of France’s political crisis lies within itself. As an iconic power, its predicament can be described as a reflection of the West.

Faced with today’s political dilemma in the West, scholars represented by Fukuyama published “America in Decay–The Sources of Political Dysfunction”as early as 2014. The conclusion is:domestic political ills have become stubborn and it is difficult for constructive reforms to occur. The political decline of the United States will continue.Although this is talking about the United States, it also applies to the entire West. Now ten years have passed, and when we look around Europe and the United States, we have to admire the accuracy of the predictions.

2024年是全球少有的大选年。相对而言，欧洲议会选举并非世界所关注。然而，6月9日选举结果却引发了法国政治地震：极右政党国民联盟以两倍的支持率大胜名列第二的执政党。仅仅一小时后，总统马克龙宣布解散国会重新进行选举，为27年来首次。法国不仅是欧盟核心国家，也是世界大国，选举结果和突然实施的非常政治举措，立即震动全球。

随后的国会选举更是出现了极其复杂、前所未有的结果：一是席次相差无几的三大政党联盟鼎足而立，无一政治势力能够单独组阁。二是包含极左政党的左翼联盟成为国会最大政治势力，其中极左的不屈法兰西席次最多。三是极右国民联盟和它的盟友虽然在所谓的“共和联盟”阻击下未能获得国会最多席次，但国民联盟本身却成为国会最大的单一政党，也是唯一席次过百的政党。四是极端政治势力成为主流，传统政党和中间势力都成为少数，法国政治不仅走向碎片化还走向极端化。

在这种情况下，类似于德国的多党联合执政应是唯一的选择。但法国一向没有这样的妥协政治文化：马克龙的执政党联盟明确排除和极左、极右合作。传统右派又决定保持独立性不和任何政党合作。极左和极右则完全敌对——双方议员甚至拒绝握手。这意味着法国将很难组成政府，所以不出意外，第五共和立法选举之后最多九天就能组成政府的纪录被轻而易举打破。更严峻的是即使组成政府也是一个少数政府和再一次的“左右共治”，不但难以运作，而且极不稳定，极易被推翻。

“左右共治”是法国专有的政治术语，指总统和总理来自不同的政党，它能够化解政治僵局，但却难以有效治理。为此2000年，曾亲身经历过两次痛苦“左右共治”的总统希拉克修改宪法，把总统任期改为5年以与议会选举同步。因为短时间民意不会发生变化，同一政党往往会赢得总统和国会选举，从而制度上解决这一难题。然而现在马克龙为应对欧洲议会选举结果进行的一场豪赌演变成政治危机，他也提前跛脚，政治生涯进入尾声。

马克龙为什么要政治豪赌？

马克龙在欧洲议会选举结果出炉一小时就迅速解散国会，说明这是早有准备的深思熟虑之举。毕竟这个选举结果与长期以来的民调一致，各方早有心理预期和应对之策。后来媒体 也披露马克龙早就和少数几个核心决策成员讨论过这一方案。

纵观第五共和历史，总统解散国会并不罕见，这已经是第六次了。原因主要是摆脱不利的困境或者打破政治僵局。比如1968年法国发生“五月风暴”，戴高乐总统就以此应对危机。对马克龙而言，他也是为了摆脱两个不利困境。一是2022年他的政党联盟在国会只是简单多数，没有过半。二是此次欧洲议会选举惨败。这两大因素都影响了他的政治地位和权力，特别是此次选举，直接动摇了他剩下三年的权力基础。

如果新国会他能够获胜，不仅一举摆脱困境，也能有效遏制党内外对他的挑战，还能一定程度影响2027年总统选举。不少民众为了避免再出现政党共治的现象，而支持复兴党的候选人。即使复兴党未能够赢得总统大选，除非新总统再度解散国会，否则它仍然可以掌握总理行政权和国会立法权，等于延续了马克龙和复兴党的政治生命。
至于新的国会选举前景，马克龙是有精算过的。

第一，此前五次解散国会，有四次都是总统大胜。马克龙自然也有信心借此手段达到目的。或者可以说，自从2022年国会复兴党未能过半之后，马克龙就处心积虑改变。这次欧洲议会选举给了他借口。

其次，这次解散国会是由于国民联盟大胜引发的。可以塑造马克龙与国民联盟对抗的形象，也就能把这次选举定位为他和国民联盟的对抗。马克龙政治根基并不深厚，之所以能够两次赢得总统选举，都和对手是国民联盟密不可分。

特别巧合的是，在他宣布之前，国民联盟就已经提出解散国会的诉求，更加强化马克龙与国民联盟的对立形象，等于是帮了马克龙。这既可能是马克龙阵营对对手立场的精准判断，也可能是通过技术手段事先获知了对方底牌。

第三，马克龙对法国民众心理的认知。欧洲议会选举和法国内政有相当的距离，民众可以借选举发泄对执政党的不满，教训执政党，也不用担心对本国政治有多大负面影响。但国会选举事关法国自身内部政治，民众要谨慎的多，高投票率也不利极右政党。第二天法国股市、欧元和国债均下跌，和欧洲议会选举并无直接关系，而是解散国会导致的，就是民众这种心理的一种反应。很明显，法国民众并不希望出现政治动荡，所以也不希望国会再度出现不同政党共治的现象。特别是不希望共治的另一党是国民联盟。毕竟已经27年没有发生过解散国会的非正常政治事件，对法国社会和民众的冲击还相当大，而解散国会的原因则和国民联盟有关。

此外，马克龙宣布的国民议会选举日期也非常耐人寻味：距离巴黎奥运会只有19天。假如国民联盟获过半席位，出任总理并组阁。但在奥运会这样全球瞩目的场合，一个极右政治人物的出现显然还是法国多数民众难以接受的。

第四，从法国国会两轮选举制度来看，国民联盟成为国会第一大党或者过半的可能性很小。因为没有任何政党愿意和它结盟，单靠它自己不可能获得如此之多席位。毕竟目前它的基本盘就是30%左右。只要国民联盟席次下降，都可以视为马克龙的成功，它可以证明民众在国内政治层面对国民联盟的支持度是相当有限的。

但结果证明马克龙显然误判了，不仅误判了民意，也误判了体制的韧性。

豪赌失败背后的制度危

马克龙的豪赌失败是因为他的两个目的都没有达到：一是他的政党联盟至少能够继续保持选前在国会第一大党的地位，如果还能够过半就是大胜。二是他反对的极右政党席次下降。

更令马克龙不希望看到的是，虽然最终避免了极右及其联盟成为国会第一大党，但最大的受益者却是包含极左的左翼联盟。由于整个左翼主张废除退休制度改革、极左翼还要大幅提高最低工资、冻结物价以及恢复征收富人税，这不仅终结马克龙执政七年的所有成果，更将对法国的经济造成严重损害，而且左翼联盟获得最多席次，政策上也不易妥协。国会选举实际出现了第二坏的结果。

马克龙的政治豪赌失败并非西方个案。2016年英国首相卡梅隆的政治豪赌也是惨败告终。这既有法国的独特性，也有西方的共性。

理解法国的政治现象有很多角度。比如从文明的角度，盎格鲁-萨克逊国家如英、美、加、澳等，不管是总统制还是议会制，往往会形成稳定的垄断性两党制，其他小党往往只是陪太子读书。即使有极左或极右政治势力产生，也往往是在传统两大党内树立山头而不是独立成党。比如美国右翼的共和党有极右立场的茶党，偏左的民主党也有极左的桑德斯。拉丁民族法国、意大利、西班牙等则往往形成分散的多党制。法兰西第三共和和第四共和，政府寿命多超不过半年，短则只有一月、一周甚至一天。为此戴高乐通过建立强行政权弱国会的第五共和，试图改变这一局面。但第五共和发展到今天，还是文明基因更加强大：上世纪八九十年代出现三次左右共治之后，2017年长期轮流执政的传统左右政党社会党和共和党开始边缘化，第一次没有一党能进入第二轮。到2022年总统大选，这两党连5%的门槛都达不到，形同泡沫化。同年的国会选举也首度无一党能过半，极左和极右政治势力并起局势成形。2024年极左和极右政治势力继续大幅增强，第五共和正前所未有的、碎片般的、第四共和化。

如果从政治制度来看，则折射出不仅法国乃至整个西方的制度危机。

正如前文所讲，法国体制的脱序早在上世纪八十年代就出现了，并一步步演变到今天。这期间希拉克总统作过修改宪法的重大努力，也一度成功经过萨科奇、奥朗德和马克龙的第一任期，但最终却出现更坏的结果。

此次马克龙的一个重大判断失误在于他相信法国制度的安全阀还有效：即为了防范极端民粹主义获得政权，国会和总统选举采用两轮制。确实，至少在2022年大选前，这一安全阀还是运作良好。比如2017年极右候选人勒庞总统选举得票率只有33.9%，远远低于一个正常政党的水平。国会选举，尽管第一轮国民联盟能够在216个选区领先，但决定胜负的第二轮仅获得8个席位，而在2012年的国会选举上，更只赢得2席。但突变在2022年就出现了：勒庞在总统选举得票率超过41%！国会选举则获得88个席次，一举超过诞生于戴高乐的传统右派共和党！显然，法国政治基础已经彻底改变，极端政治势力获得的支持已经能够冲破制度屏障。

只是马克龙忽视了这一信号，所以他在国民联盟大胜背景下进行的豪赌就必然失败了。

美国的政治脱序也早在2000年选举争议时就出现了：克林顿八年的卓越执政并不能帮助本党获胜，这标志着至少在十二年前里根时代还存在的“奖优惩劣”的制度功能丧失。再后就是小布什时代的两场错误的战争和一场金融危机，直至2016年特朗普当选总统、2020年大选共和党不承认选举结果以及随后的占领国会、2024年第一位前总统被判有罪，政治共识和低线进一步打破。尤其是选举年在野党候选人被判有罪、进而遭遇暗杀，美国政治大有第三世界化的趋势。

从全球角度看，法国政治变化已经是整个西方的共性了。

首先，西方进入一人一票的大众民主时代之后，选民的素质和来源变化越来越成为影响选举的重要因素。

此前的英国脱欧、特朗普胜选以及欧洲极右政党的迅速崛起、今天的欧洲议会和法国国会选举都是如此。

极右国民联盟是国会单一第一大党，它的支持者主要来自工人、低学历者、乡村、小城镇、年青人。工人群体和高中以下学历的群体对它的投票率都高达50%以上。此外雇员这一层次也超过40%，高中毕业层次也达到32%。极右在年青人、乡村、小城镇的支持率也远远领先其他政党。这和特朗普的支持者同出一辙。

至于包括极左政党的新人民阵线，则获得了60%以上的穆斯林选票。法国是天主教国家，穆斯林主要来自于移民。2022年总统选举，极左候选人梅朗雄获得70%的穆斯林选票，仅以1.2%的差距未能进入第二轮。考虑到种族结构迅速的此消彼长，2027年总统选举，穆斯林选票将决定谁能进入第二轮。

美国也有类似现象。民主党的奥巴马两次竞选分别获得95%和93%的非洲裔选票以及绝大多数拉丁美洲裔和亚裔，值得一提的是2012年仅39%的白人投票给他。2016年大选，特朗普获得多数白人的支持，希拉里则获得少数族裔多数选票。2020年拜登获得的非洲裔选票也高达92%。也就是说，要么很多选民投票的依据不再是候选人的政策、理念和能力——而这本是西方民主政治良好运作的基础，要么从政治层面显示了美国的种族对立。

然而，在任何国家，受过高等教育、生活在大城市、从事管理高收入岗位的都是少数，决定选举结果的则是绝大多数只关注自身当下利益的普通人。目前欧美本土民族出生率很低，只能引进出生率很高的外来移民。迅速变化的种族结构也必然反应到政治上来，成为欧美极右政治势力迅速崛起的一个因素。

事实上西方理论界很早就意识到人与人在财富和教育上的差异。英国政治学者密尔在其名著《代议制政府》中就指出：“允许执行这类高级职务的每一个人有两票或两票以上的投票权”。只是有违人人平等理念而无法实行。

西方崛起五百年，从盛到衰的时间线上和实行大众民主相一致，这并非是巧合。

其次，政治走向极端化而无法妥协。

今天的欧洲也步美国政治极化的后尘。法国极左和极右形同水火。马克龙总统声明绝不和极左、极右合作，称这两大政党的政策会导致内战，毁掉法国经济。国会三大政党联盟，对国家发展和未来毫无共识，都认为对方会把国家带向深渊。

美国自奥巴马时代起，政治极化和社会撕裂日益严重，到了特朗普时代，更是极速升级。白宫发言人桑德斯和她的朋友外出就餐，在点的餐已经端上餐桌的情况下，却被餐馆老板赶出。

理由是她为一个“没人性和不道德”的政府工作并为之辩护。拜登执政时期，共和党支持者闯入议长佩洛西家中，试图劫持她为人质。结果她独自在家的老公被铁锤击伤。

美国制宪会议上，有人问：“麦迪逊先生，你能否告诉我们美国政府如有原则会是什么？”。他回答说：“原则有三个：妥协，妥协，妥协”。

只是妥协是建立在各政治力量还有基本共识的基础之上，这也是西方民主制度能够运转的前提条件，否则要么激化成美国内战，要么权力制衡走向今天的否决政治。需要指出的是，美国内战时期，尚没有实行普选，政治只是精英之间的博弈。但仍然只能以战争的方式来解决分歧，更别说今天的欧美了。从这个历史逻辑上看，2020年美国大选出现共和党不承认选举结果、支持者占领国会的恶性事件就是必然了。

最后，以上两大特点导致今天欧美改革的难度和成本非常高昂，几乎到了难以改革、很难有效治理的地步。

公平的讲，执政七年的马克龙不得人心不是因为无能而是勇于改革。他任内发生过两次全国性大规模抗议运动：一是因为燃油税小幅上调——仅合人民币5毛——引发的黄马甲运动。二是因为退休制度改革。

黄马甲运动是第五共和历史上第二大规模的社会冲突，而且极其暴力，但直接起因仅仅是如此微小的价格调整。运动爆发后，各大在野政党出于政治利益考量纷纷卷入，甚至为暴力行为开脱：要么指责暴力是政府引发的，要么直接歌颂暴力。

马克龙进入第二任期后，没有选举压力的他面对各阶层的反对，力推退休制度改革，并引用宪法不经国会投票直接成为法律，显示了破釜沉舟的决心。但此次国会选举之后，极左和极右都表示要废除此项改革。法国在付出巨大政治成本和社会成本之后又一切回到原点。

所以从根本上讲，欧洲议会选举只是导火索，法国政治危机的真正原因还在自身。作为指标性大国，它的困境可谓西方的写照。

对于今天西方的政治困境，以福山为代表的学者早在2014年就发表《衰败的美利坚–政治制度失灵的根源》，结论是：“国内政治弊病已经顽固不化，很难出现富有建设性的改革，美国政治衰败还将继续下去。”这虽然说的是美国，但同样适用于整个西方。如今十年过去了，环顾欧美，不得不叹服预测之精准。