AI-assisted translation

Emmanuel Macron lost the European and legislative elections in France. Kamala Harris (and the Democrats) lost the presidential and congressional elections in the United States. Both were swept away by the same issue: the cost of living, purchasing power, and inflation. The low unemployment rate—near historic lows in both economies—was of no avail.

Inflation as the Worst Tax

This is hardly surprising. “Inflation is the worst tax,” said Milton Friedman. While the monetarism of this American liberal economist may no longer be relevant, and though his positions—blending liberalism and conservatism in a confusing mix—have done considerable harm to the political culture of freedom, he has a point here: inflation hits the weakest, the salaried workers, and small savers. Not everyone can recover what they have lost. Bygones are bygones, as economists say about inflation. Yet for many, this loss is nothing short of tragic.

The Fight Against Inflation: An Unpopular Battle

Macron and the U.S. Democrats were defeated over inflation, but we should remember that inflation is not under the control of governments or parliaments. It is entrusted to central banks, and even if this were not the case, governments would still have limited options to counter rising prices without resorting to extremely unpopular measures. One of the problems with inflation—which is why it is far worse than the “worst tax”—is that there are few ways to fight it other than by cooling the economy through interest rate hikes or cuts to public spending (these two levers being more effective when used together). Thus, the “cure” for inflation is exceedingly costly: it entails higher unemployment. In this latest inflationary phase, for structural reasons, a hard landing or outright recession has been avoided, although this was a constant worry; however, the French unemployment rate still rose from 7.1% to 7.4% (compared to a long-term average of 9%), and the U.S. rate from 3.4% to 4.1% (compared to a long-term average of 5.7%).

The Unfair Symmetry of Monetary Policy

Citizens have also learned that, on the subject of prices, an unfair and inefficient symmetry prevails: prices never fall across the board, and thus purchasing power never increases unless through a rise—difficult and never universal—in wages. Central banks, even recently, have fiercely opposed any tendency for prices to slow or fall, even introducing dystopian negative rates: the heavy debts of governments and corporations (especially in France) argued against deflation. Economic research, as shown in the work of the Bank for International Settlements, indicates that cooling and falling prices are a less serious phenomenon than inflation. Disinflation tends to stabilize itself, while inflation tends to spiral out of control. This symmetrical behavior by central banks thus conceals a deeply asymmetrical approach by institutions. Some economic players, it seems, are more equal than others…

The Illusion of Decisionism

The issue of purchasing power is just one example—among many others, and extending well beyond the economic sphere—of the illusion of decisionism, prevalent at least since 1915 with the introduction of the war economy, which inspired both Leninist and Nazi projects (fascism, on the other hand, initially adopted a liberal economic policy before later transforming into an interventionist system). The idea is that the executive branch can steer the economy, even fine-tune it. This illusion leads to viewing as obstacles to the common good anything that seems to limit, restrict, or correct the executive’s action. By gradually expanding its reach, the executive has created an unresolved issue, one perhaps never fully addressed: its democratic legitimacy. For a government to be democratic, it is not enough to be elected by the people: Napoleon III, Hitler, Putin (and many others) were directly or indirectly invested by popular vote (sometimes without a majority, as in Hitler’s infamous case). The analyses of Pierre Rosanvallon in Le Bon Gouvernement are exemplary in this respect.

The Unchecked Expansion of Executive Power

Modern liberalism and constitutionalism, with their separation of powers—including a supreme or constitutional court—the European institutional structure (Parliament, Council, Commission), international law, and the creation of independent agencies in the economic sphere, such as the central bank are all attempts to curb this excessive power of the executive.

The Rule of Law Under Scrutiny

The illusion of decisionism, however, is growing ever stronger, especially when the problems requiring solutions become more pressing. Exploited by those seeking executive power, it leads—naturally, one might say—to a denunciation of the rule of law and the independence of authorities as obstacles to achieving objectives. The Rassemblement National denounces the rule of law, as does the entire Republican Party in France; Donald Trump does the same, asking the Senate to relinquish its power to confirm his ministers; and the Italian government has long done likewise, denouncing its own constitutional weakness regardless of which political forces are in charge, when in fact it lacks strategic ideas for the country’s role and future. It is, after all, difficult for the political sphere not to respond to citizens’ urgent demands to “do something.”

The Global Threat of Populism

The result is forms of populism, illiberalism, and plebiscitary democracy. All rest on the illusion that a single person or small group—rather than a system of rules—can make the decisions that guide and determine the future of a country, despite the complexities of advanced societies and economies. This illusion can only survive if we imagine a social reality that is simpler than it actually is. It assumes that everything that “disturbs” decision-making is unreal, apparent, false because it results from misinformation, ideological bias, or even conspiracies; or that it serves special interests, more or less unmentionable. The inevitable result of this approach to decision-making is the authoritarian suppression of difference, leading to a loss in the overall richness of societies.

A Disease of Politics

The illusion of decisionism is thus the illness of this prolonged political phase. The prospect of individuals or small groups capable of making executive decisions is simply unrealistic. Pursuing this illusion, which sometimes turns into deception, can lead to enormous damage. It is quite different to define norms, laws, and general procedures. The example of the traffic code is often cited, which leaves each individual free to decide where to go. This may not be a completely fitting example, as a country may need to set certain common goals, for example, when defining its international position. Yet the right path is indeed this one, involving an objective that many may find inconceivable: the reduction of executive power and the expansion of legislative power.

Macron and Harris: The Absent Solution

Macron and Harris lost, but they are not part of the solution. Respectful of the separation of powers and a more balanced system, they are less dangerous than populists like Donald Trump, Marine Le Pen, and many others. However, Macron’s European sovereigntism and the Democrats’ interventionism are attenuated forms of the same ailment, of the same illusion. It is no surprise that their political actions feed populism rather than diminishing it. They are not an alternative.

The Return to the Legislature

The path forward may be different: it requires a renewed institutional framework and political culture. The institutional system must strengthen the legislative branch and its capacity for policy development and political elaboration, while the executive branch must return to the traditional framework of the separation of powers, reestablishing checks and balances and fostering synergy among institutions without necessarily seeking “unanimity.” Political culture must instead revive the idea that the problems of an entire society cannot be delegated and cannot be solved with sweeping decisions spurred by real or supposed emergencies. “Democratic participation,” a formula now empty and rhetorical, has a future if it becomes a coordinated, cooperative search for solutions to society’s problems. For this purpose, it is true, permanent or temporary forums for discussion are needed—not merely symbolic spaces or dominated by assemblyism, but real spaces for shared decision-making, capable of contributing to the development of practical and lasting solutions.