And you, do you have an opinion on the primary? As the presidential election approaches, all political leaders have one and do not hesitate to give it. There are those who defend it at all costs, like Marine Tondelier. Those who don’t want to hear about it, like Jean-Luc Mélenchon or Xavier Bertrand. Those also who call for the coming together of the right and the center, but are hesitant about the form.
Maud Bregeon is one of them. “I don’t have a magic solution†to achieve this objective of unity, she declared on LCI Sunday March 29, recalling that she had not “Never advocated for a primary” because of its organization « éminemment complexe ». The government spokesperson gives the example of the Republican primary in 2016 which did not concern “Qu’un seul parti”. Ten years later, the debates on holding a primary have become inseparable from those on its perimeter: with whom? Can we really bring together Gabriel Attal and Bruno Retailleau under the same banner? Marine Tondelier and Raphaël Glucksmann?
The question was not always asked. Just as the primaries have not always put off aspirants to the Élysée as much, quite the contrary.
2012, the example of the successful primary
The idea of primaries to nominate the best candidate from each camp for the Élysée emerged at the start of the 1990s. The parties then favored closed primaries, that is to say reserved for members only. The 2002 election and the presence of Jean-Marie Le Pen in the second round pushed the parties to seriously consider the open primary, that is to say accessible to all voters, in order to prevent the multiplication of candidates and therefore the scattering of votes in the first round.
The Socialist Party is the first to launch. Successfully: in 2012, François Hollande was nominated candidate for the Socialist Party. Some 2.5 million French people voted in the first round and 2.8 million in the second round. François Hollande won 56.6% of the votes in the second round, or around 1.6 million votes. Enough to offer the PS candidate real legitimacy and good momentum at the start of the campaign. It will not be denied subsequently, since François Hollande will be elected President of the Republic.
The experiment was a success and the left decided to do it again. The Republicans follow. But the outcome will be less happy. On the left, the losers of the primary Manuel Valls and François de Rugy finally joined Emmanuel Macron and the winner Benoît Hamon finished 5th in the first round of the supreme vote. On the right, François Fillon also failed to qualify for the second round. But its failure can be explained above all by the resounding affair of fictitious jobs revealed during the campaign. The primary, on the contrary, seems to have benefited the candidate, the only representative of the right. In January, two months after having appointed, François Fillon was given second position in the opinion surveys. And despite the legal and media storm, he managed to climb 3rd in the first round with 20% of the votes. A score far from dishonorable.
2017, Macron’s first election contradicts certainties
Even if they are not infallible, the use of a primary has therefore proven itself. But then how can we explain the lack of overall enthusiasm around this method of designation for 2027? For Laurence Morel, professor of political science at the University of Lille, everything changed in 2017. “Emmanuel Macron did not go through a primary, he was not even supported by a party, he had to create his own formation… And he won, in a very dispersed context, with many candidates. From this moment on, the primary no longer appears necessary to win,” explains the political scientist to HuffPost.
Five years later, the 2022 presidential election reinforces this idea. Three parties are embarking on a primary with a view to the election: the PS, the Republicans and the Environmentalists. Their results will be disastrous. In the first round, Valérie Pécresse and Yannick Jadot did not reach 5%. Anne Hidalgo collapses to less than 2%. The fault, in part, is a structurally different primary.
In 2012 and 2017, it was enough to sign a charter, register online and pay a small fee to participate in the primaries organized on the left and the right. In 2022, “There was no open primary. The voters felt a little excluded, they witnessed the spectacle of the candidates discussing among themselves, without having their say.” underlines Laurence Morel. Result? The electoral base of the nominated candidates is much lower. Where François Hollande knew he could count on more than a million voters, Anne Hidalgo had only received the support of part of the 50,000 socialist members, according to the figures communicated by the party at the time.
2027, “Everyone feels like they have a chance”
All these precedents have something to cool down for one or more primaries in 2027. On the contrary. In a political landscape where parties are weakened, no natural candidate has emerged outside the National Rally and LFI, which leaves the field open to a multitude of candidates. With or without a party behind, “Everyone feels like they have a chance,” notes Laurence Morel. But, adds the specialist, “This fragmentation is not the consequence of an absence of primary education. This is the cause of the absence of primary.»
Among all those who aspire to succeed Emmanuel Macron, some already benefit from a good popularity rating and the voting intentions that go with it. This is the case of Édouard Phillippe, the only potential winner of a duel against the RN according to an Elabe opinion survey for BFMTV and The Tribune end of March. Or even Raphaël Glucksmann and Jean-Luc Mélenchon
For these anticipated or declared candidates, participating in a primary is only of limited interest. Assuming the scope suits them and they emerge victorious, this could strengthen their momentum in the race. But with no guarantee of winning. Conversely, not participating allows them to escape this image of small arrangements between parties – especially in the event of a closed primary -, which are not necessarily popular with voters. And as for deciding who in a camp is best placed, they can count on at least two other tools: the 500 sponsorships, not always easy to obtain, and above all, the 13 months remaining between now and the vote, with the possibility of rallies and withdrawals under the pressure of opinion studies. Finally, a third sorting will be made in the first round by the voters, who rather than voting for their favorite candidate, could cast their vote on a candidate likely to win in the second round. A sort of “Vote useful“, estimates Laurence Morel.
In summary? In the context of 2027, where the pro-primary are positioning themselves mainly in a logic of opposition (against the extreme right for the left, against the Mélenchonists and the extreme right for the right and the center), the primary certainly makes it possible to avoid the dispersion of votes. But it is not synonymous with systematic victory. And if it does not serve the candidates, a primary may on the other hand not serve them.
