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 cost by cost, like Marine Tondelier. Those who do not want to hear about it, like Jean-Luc Mélenchon or Xavier Bertrand. Those also who call for the gathering of the right and the center, but are hesitant about the form.
Maud Bregeon is among them. “I have no magical solution to achieve this goal of unity,” she declared at the end of March on LCI, recalling never having “pleaded for a primary” because of its “eminently complex” organization. The government spokesperson gives the example of the Republicans’ primary in 2016 which only concerned “one party.” Ten years later, debates on holding a primary have become inseparable from debates on its perimeter: 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 arisen. Just as primaries have not always deterred potential candidates at the Elysée, quite the opposite.
2012, the example of a successful primary
The idea of primaries to designate the best candidate from each camp at the Elysée emerged in the early 90s. Parties then favored closed primaries, reserved for members only. The 2002 elections and the presence of Jean-Marie Le Pen in the second round led parties to seriously consider open primaries, accessible to all voters, to prevent the proliferation of candidacies and the scattering of votes 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, about 1.6 million votes. Enough to give the PS candidate real legitimacy and a good start to the campaign. This was confirmed as François Hollande was elected President of the Republic.
The experience was a success and the left decided to do it again. The Republicans followed suit. But the outcome would be less successful. On the left, the losers of the primary Manuel Valls and François de Rugy ultimately joined Emmanuel Macron, and the winner Benoît Hamon finished 5th in the first round of the ultimate vote. On the right, François Fillon also failed to qualify for the second round. But his failure was mainly due to the sensational fake jobs scandal revealed during the campaign. The primary, however, seemed to have benefited the candidate, the only representative of the right. In January, two months after being designated, François Fillon was ranked second in opinion polls. And despite the legal and media storm, he managed to reach 3rd place 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, using a primary has proven its worth. But then how to explain the lack of global enthusiasm for this method of designation in 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 was not even supported by a party, he had to create his own party and he won in a very scattered context, with many candidacies. From that 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 launch a primary for the election: the PS, the Republicans, and the Greens. Their results will be disastrous. In the first round, Valérie Pécresse and Yannick Jadot do not reach 5%. Anne Hidalgo collapses to less than 2%. This is partly due to a structurally different primary.
In 2012 and 2017, one only had to sign a charter, register online, and pay a modest sum to participate in the primaries organized on the left and right. In 2022, “there was no open primary. Voters felt a bit excluded, they watched the spectacle of candidates discussing among themselves, without having a say,” emphasizes Laurence Morel. The result? The electoral base of the designated candidates is much smaller. Whereas François Hollande could count on more than a million voters, Anne Hidalgo only had the support of a part of the 50,000 Socialist Party members, according to the figures communicated by the party at the time.
2027, “everyone feels they have a chance“
All these precedents might discourage the idea of one or more primaries in 2027. On the contrary. In a political landscape where parties are weakened, no natural candidate has emerged aside from the National Rally and LFI, leaving room for 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 a good level of popularity and accompanying voting intentions. This is the case for Edouard Philippe, the only potential winner of a duel against the RN according to a survey by Elabe for BFMTV and La Tribune at the end of March. Or even Raphaël Glucksmann and Jean-Luc Mélenchon.
For these predicted or declared candidates, participating in a primary presents limited interest. Assuming the perimeter suits them and they emerge victorious, it could reinforce their momentum in the race. But without a guarantee of winning. Conversely, not participating allows them to escape the image of backroom deals between parties – especially in the case of a closed primary – not necessarily well received by voters. And when it comes to deciding who is best placed in a camp, they can rely on at least two other tools: the 500 sponsorships, not always easy to obtain, and especially the 13 months left before the election, with the possibility of endorsements and withdrawals under the pressure of polls. Finally, a third selection will be made by voters after the first round, who instead of voting for their favorite candidate, could shift their vote to a candidate likely to win in the second round. A kind of “useful vote,” according to Laurence Morel.
In summary? In the context of 2027, where pro-primary supporters position themselves mainly in an opposition logic (against the far right for the left, against the Mélenchonists and the far right for the right and center), the primary certainly avoids the scattering of votes. But it is not synonymous with systematic victory. And while it may not harm the candidates, a primary may not necessarily benefit them either.
