And you, do you have an opinion on the primary election? As the presidential election approaches, all political leaders have an opinion and do not hesitate to voice it. There are those who defend it at all costs, like Marine Tondelier. Those who do not want to hear about it, like Jean-Luc Mélenchon or Xavier Bertrand. Those who also call for the gathering of the right and the center, but are hesitant about the form.
Maud Bregeon is one of those. “I have no magic solution to achieve this unity goal,” she declared on LCI on Sunday, March 29, reminding that she had never advocated for a primary due to its highly complex organization. The government spokesperson gives the example of the Republicans’ primary in 2016, which concerned only one party. Ten years later, debates on holding a primary have become inseparable from those on its scope: with whom? Can we really unite under the same banner Gabriel Attal and Bruno Retailleau? Marine Tondelier and Raphaël Glucksmann?
The question has not always been asked. Just as the primaries have not always deterred aspiring candidates at the Elysée, quite the contrary.
2012, the example of a successful primary
The idea of primaries to designate the best candidate from each camp emerged in the early 1990s. Parties then favored closed primaries, reserved only for members. The 2002 election and the presence of Jean-Marie Le Pen in the second round prompted parties to seriously consider open primaries, accessible to all voters, to prevent multiple candidacies and vote fragmentation in the first round.
The Socialist Party was the first to take the plunge. With success: in 2012, François Hollande was designated as the Socialist Party candidate. Around 2.5 million French people voted in the first round and 2.8 million in the second round. François Hollande received 56.6% of the votes in the second round, around 1.6 million votes. Enough to give the PS candidate real legitimacy and a good campaign momentum. This success was confirmed, as François Hollande was elected President of the Republic.
The experience was a success, and the left decided to repeat it. The Republicans followed suit. But the outcome was less favorable. On the left, the losers of the primary, Manuel Valls and François de Rugy, eventually rallied behind Emmanuel Macron, and the winner Benoît Hamon finished 5th in the first round of the election. On the right, François Fillon also failed to qualify for the second round. His failure was mainly due to the scandal of fictitious jobs revealed during the campaign. The primary seemed to benefit the candidate, the only representative of the right. In January, two months after being designated, François Fillon was ranked second in opinion polls. Despite the legal and media storm, he managed to finish 3rd in the first round with 20% of the votes. A score far from dishonorable.
2017, Macron’s first election contradicts certainties
Although not infallible, the use of a primary has proven effective. But how to explain the lack of global enthusiasm around this method of designation for 2027? According to Laurence Morel, a political science professor at the University of Lille, everything changed from 2017. “Emmanuel Macron did not go through a primary, he wasn’t even supported by a party, he had to create his own party… And he won, in a highly dispersed context, with many candidacies. From that moment, the primary no longer appears necessary to win,” explains the political scientist in an interview with HuffPost.
Five years later, the 2022 presidential election reinforces this idea. Three parties held primaries for the election: the PS, the Republicans, and the Greens. Their results were disastrous. In the first round, Valérie Pécresse and Yannick Jadot did not reach 5%. Anne Hidalgo plummeted to less than 2%. This was partly due to a structurally different primary.
In 2012 and 2017, all it took was signing a charter, registering online, and paying a small amount to participate in the primaries organized on the left and on the right. In 2022, “there was no open primary. Voters felt somewhat excluded, witnessing the spectacle of candidates discussing among themselves, without having a say,” emphasizes Laurence Morel. The result? The voter base for the designated candidates was much lower. While François Hollande could count on over a million voters, Anne Hidalgo only had the support of a portion of the 50,000 Socialist Party members, according to figures released by the party at the time.
2027, “everyone feels they have a chance“
All these precedents might deter some from participating in 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, leaving the field open to a multitude of candidacies. With or without a party behind them, “everyone feels they have a chance,” notes Laurence Morel. But, adds the specialist, “this fragmentation is not the consequence of the absence of a primary. It is the cause of the absence of a primary.”
Among all those aspiring to succeed Emmanuel Macron, some already enjoy popularity and corresponding voting intentions. This is the case for Edouard Philippe, the only potential winner in a duel against the National Rally according to an Elabe opinion poll for BFMTV and La Tribune at the end of March. And also for Raphaël Glucksmann and Jean-Luc Mélenchon.
For these potential or declared candidates, participating in a primary presents limited interest. Assuming that the scope suits them and they emerge victorious, it could strengthen their momentum in the race. But without a guarantee of winning. Conversely, not participating allows them to distance themselves from the image of backroom deals between parties – especially in the case of a closed primary – which may not be well received by the voters. And when it comes to determining who is best placed in a camp, they can rely on at least two other tools: the 500 endorsements, not always easy to obtain, and especially the 13 months remaining until the election, with the possibility of alliances and withdrawals under the pressure of opinion polls. Lastly, a third sorting will be done after the first round by voters, who instead of voting for their preferred candidate, could redirect their votes to a candidate likely to win in the second round. A kind of “strategic vote,” according to Laurence Morel.
In summary? In the context of 2027, where pro-primary supporters position themselves mostly in an opposition logic (against the far right for the left, against the Mélenchonists and the far right for the right and the center), the primary certainly avoids vote splitting. But it is not synonymous with systematic victory. And while it may not harm the candidates, a primary may not necessarily benefit them either.
