"Primary of democrats": Attal rebuffed by the centre and the right, what is missing first is a common foundation

Gabriel Attal chose the TF1 evening news, on the evening of Wednesday 28 October, to launch what he calls a "grand primary of democrats". According to AFP, the Renaissance candidate for the presidential election wants to avoid a runoff between La France insoumise and the Rassemblement national, a duel from which the country, he said, "would not recover". Twenty-four hours later, the idea had mostly met with refusals.

The facts

According to Sud Radio, the proposal borrows the charter of values championed by Hervé Morin and the timetable sketched out by François Bayrou: a vote by the end of January, open in return for a symbolic contribution of one or two euros. The scope remains vague. It would target candidates committed to republican values, authority, secularism, European integration and competitiveness, and who reject any alliance with the extremes. LCP reports that three figures were directly approached: Édouard Philippe, Bruno Retailleau and David Lisnard. Asked about Édouard Philippe's refusal, Gabriel Attal said, according to AFP, that those who stayed on the sidelines would bear part of the responsibility for division.

The context sheds light on the move. An Ifop-Fiducial poll for Sud Radio, published on 21 October, puts Gabriel Attal at 5% of voting intentions if Édouard Philippe stays in the race, and at 13% if he withdraws. Bruno Retailleau hovers between 5 and 7%. The debate is not new: as early as June, Public Sénat reported that Édouard Philippe had ruled on France 5 that a primary "will not take place", and that a Horizons senator saw autumn polls as the natural arbiter of the central bloc.

The positions

The reactions, compiled by LCP, are almost all negative. Maud Bregeon, government spokesperson and a supporter of Édouard Philippe, said on BFMTV that she had not really understood the proposal, wondering who seriously imagines Raphaël Glucksmann and Bruno Retailleau competing in the same primary. The entourage of the president of Les Républicains told AFP the project was "stillborn", seeing in it the promise of five more years of "at the same time". Laurent Marcangeli, for Horizons, denounced on X an "at the same time" he found "as muddled as it is reckless". According to Sud Radio, Dominique de Villepin's entourage also politely declined.

On the left, the president of the Socialist group, Boris Vallaud, quipped on X:

telephone cold-calling — Boris Vallaud

Raphaël Glucksmann's camp, whose candidate was chosen to represent the social-democratic left at the end of its own primary, had already rejected a first outstretched hand in early October, calling it a publicity stunt, as Brut reported with AFP. Only David Lisnard welcomed the idea; he has been calling for an open primary for two years and now urges haste. Hervé Morin, who launched a petition to that effect at the end of August, believes for his part that there is still time to organise it.

The sceptics' arguments must be fairly heard. A primary presupposes a common foundation, and it is hard to see what would unite social democracy and Bruno Retailleau's right, which differ deeply on taxation as well as immigration. It can also expose divisions that a campaign would then struggle to heal. Finally, political scientist Brice Soccol, quoted by Sud Radio, sees it as a "lifeline" for a candidate who is trailing.

The analysis

These objections are serious. But they do not answer the question raised. The fragmentation of the centre and the republican right is a fact everyone acknowledges, and refusing any common rule amounts to handing the arbitration to polls alone, that is, to the opinion of the moment rather than to the votes of citizens. The primary of the social-democratic left showed that such an exercise could choose a candidate and clarify a camp.

The weakness of Attal's proposal lies elsewhere. It starts from a fear, the duel between LFI and the RN, without saying what people would rally around. Yet putting these two parties on the same footing is not enough to build a project, and part of the left disputes this symmetry anyway. The Gaullist and Chiraquian tradition teaches something else: in 2002, the republican rally was built on values, not on electoral mechanics. And when Jacques Chirac spoke of the "social fracture" in 1995, he was pointing first of all to what was damaging the country's cohesion.

A foundation that said nothing about tax justice, the defence of public services or the ecological transition would risk rallying only those already convinced. Conversely, a charter that made hospitals, schools and fairness in taxation shared commitments would stand a chance of reaching voters tempted by abstention or by the extremes.

Conclusion

The "primary of democrats" now looks off to a poor start, for lack of partners. It at least has the merit of raising a question that the central bloc and the republican right will not be able to dodge for long: on what social contract do they intend to ask for the trust of the French people? Before debating the method of selection, the candidates would do well to publish that foundation. If no agreement is possible on the essentials, no primary will create one. If it is, the question of method will become secondary.

Article written with the help of artificial intelligence.