Connect with us

World

French National Assembly election: What’s at stake and what to expect?

Published

on

French National Assembly election: What’s at stake and what to expect?

French voters will cast their ballots on Sunday in the first of two rounds to elect 577 members of the National Assembly, as country looks set to enter a new political era.

The elections come after French President Emmanuel Macron called for a snap vote triggered by a crushing defeat to Marine Le Pen’s far-right National Rally (NR) party at the European Parliament elections on June 9.

Polls suggest the coming elections will confirm the trend. NR leads strongly with 36 percent of the vote, followed by left-wing bloc Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP) at 28.5 percent, trailed by Macron’s centrist alliance – Ensemble – with 21 percent.

If the results echo the polls, Macron might have to cohabitate with an antagonistic prime minister, regardless of who is elected.

Advertisement

How do the French elections work?

Voting opens at 06:00 GMT and is expected to end at 16:00 GMT in most of the country, but polling stations in Paris and other major cities will stay open until 18:00 GMT.

To win a majority in the National Assembly, a party or alliance needs 289 seats — just over the halfway mark in the House. Macron’s outgoing coalition fell short of that number, limiting its ability to push through its legislative agenda.

For the verdict on any of the 577 seats to be called on Sunday, July 30, two conditions need to be met. First, the voter turnout needs to be at least 25 percent. Second, a candidate needs to win an absolute majority of votes cast.

In a multiparty system like France’s, that typically means that many, if not most, contests go to a second round of voting – scheduled this time for July 7.

Only those candidates who secure at least 12.5 percent of the vote in the first round can stand in the second round, effectively narrowing the field of contestants.

Advertisement

Why is this election so different?

Traditionally, National Assembly elections are held straight after the presidential vote, and so reflect the same popular mood. The result is a prime minister from the same political party as the president, who then can implement policies with a strong mandate.

But those power dynamics have now shifted and for the first time in 22 years, France will have a state of cohabitation: a deeply unpopular president ruling alongside a government elected in as a vote of dissatisfaction against Macron himself.

“It will mark the beginning of a new way of governing and the end of the presidential agenda,” said Emmanuel Dupuy, president of the Institute for European Perspective and Security Studies, a think tank on diplomacy and political analysis. “Macronism has already almost collapsed and it will exit the election totally wiped out,” he said.

Election boards are seen ahead of the June 30 and July 7 French parliamentary elections, in Paris, France, June 19, 2024. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier
Election boards are seen ahead of the June 30 and July 7 French parliamentary elections, in Paris, France [Benoit Tessier/Reuters]

How did we get here?

Macron first came to power in 2017 riding a wave of support, as he pledged to create a centrist bloc, lacing the moderate left and right together. But it didn’t take long before his language started sounding too aloof to the ears of people in the suburbs – he got the nickname Jupiter. His economic reforms were too right wing to liberals who had previously backed him; and his way of governing was seen as too despotic by many right and left voters.

Now, the election could mark an end to Jupiter’s solo show, as France looks set to enter a new political era.

“He runs the country like a CEO of a company,” said Samantha de Bendern, associate fellow at Chatham House. “But a country is not a company and he failed to build alliances with partners – Macron is a loner,” de Bendern said.

Advertisement

One of the starkest signals of his isolation was the Yellow Vest movement – a period of violent protests in 2018. What started as workers on lower-middle incomes infuriated by planned increases in diesel taxes snowballed into a wider movement against the president’s perceived bias in favour of the elite. His second mandate was marked by a highly contested bill in 2023 to raise the country’s retirement by two years which turned into another huge domestic challenge as he faced widespread opposition.

And while he won a second mandate in 2022 – in good measure by scaring, rather than attracting, voters over the prospect of the far right taking over the presidency – the tactic seems to have tired many. “There is a feeling of anger – people are fed up with showing this scare for Le Pen while being forced to vote for Macron to keep out the far right,” de Bendern said.

What is Le Pen’s ‘dediabolisation’?

Meanwhile, Le Pen has meticulously crafted a so-called dediabolisation – de-demonisation – strategy over the past two decades, aimed at broadening the party’s base while tempering its radical discourse to distance itself from many references that had made the NR too toxic to several voters.

The party has long been associated with notorious racists, and xenophobic and anti-Semitic slurs. Her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, once convicted of hate speech for saying that Nazi gas chambers were “a detail of history”, was expelled from the party in 2015. Le Pen convinced the moderate right instead that she was not a threat to democracy and conquered areas traditionally close to the far left, especially in the Communist Party, promising social welfare policies and tight restrictions on migrants.

Marine Le Pen, President of the French far-right National Rally (Rassemblement National - RN) party parliamentary group, and Jordan Bardella, President of the French far-right National Rally (Rassemblement National - RN) party and head of the RN list for the European elections, attend a political rally during the party's campaign for the EU elections, in Paris, France, June 2, 2024. REUTERS/Christian Hartmann/File Photo
Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella attend a political rally during the party’s campaign for the EU elections, in Paris, France [File: Christian Hartmann/Reuters]

“Many [by voting NR] are expressing their opposition to a system that they feel is depriving them of what they deserve in favour of people, mostly foreigners, who are getting benefits that are not due,” said Baptiste Roger-Lacan, historian and political analyst with a focus on far-right parties in Europe.

Today, the party’s candidate to be the country’s prime minister is Jordan Bardella, an impeccably dressed 28-year-old man who looks like a mix between a Wolf of Wall Street and Superman’s alter ego Clark Kent. Yet he comes from the suburbs and speaks to his tens of thousands of followers not just on the street but also on TikTok. He has no experience in governance.

Advertisement

On the other side, far to centre-left parties have united under the New Popular Front. Its most vocal cause has been its support for the Palestinian cause amid the war in Gaza, a position that has earned the grouping popularity among young voters and the Muslim community.

By contrast, the NR has firmly supported Israel condemning “pogroms on Israeli soil” and attacking the leader of the far-left La France Insoumise party, Jean-Luc Melenchon, for failing to call the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel “terrorism” – something that has caused friction within the bloc itself.

What would a far-right win mean?

The most serious repercussion of a win for the NR is going to be on the domestic front. While the party now says anti-Semitism is a problem of the left-wing party, it has shifted its focus against migrants and Muslims. France is home to Europe’s biggest Muslim community, with families settled there for several generations.

While Bardella did not specify what “specific legislation” he would push for to fight “Islamist ideologies”, he said in the past the party would work to ban the wearing of the Islamic headscarf in public spaces and to make it easier to close mosques.

The RN has also made its top priority the adoption of stringent border controls, the scrapping of birthright citizenship – a practice that for centuries has been granting citizenship to those born in France to foreign parents – and the introduction via constitutional referendum of the “national preference”, a system by which someone would be excluded benefits from social security rights unless with a French passport.

Advertisement

“Clearly the NR is still xenophobic so any foreigner has something to lose, any foreigner who has not a European heritage would have to lose something if the NR were to be elected,” Roger-Lacan said.

A woman passes by the election boards placed ahead of the June 30 and July 7 French parliamentary elections, in Paris, France, June 19, 2024. REUTERS/Benoit Tessier
A woman passes election boards placed ahead of the June 30 and July 7 French parliamentary elections, in Paris, France [Benoit Tessier/Reuters]

And what about foreign policy?

With his eyes on power, Bardella has been softening or reversing some of the party’s traditional positions. He made a U-turn on Ukraine saying he was committed to keep providing military support to Kyiv, while pushing back against critics’ allegations of some party members’ links to the Kremlin.

Still, considering Macron’s unwavering stance on Ukraine and France’s role as a pillar of the European Union, a Bardella-led government not committed as much to the European project, would mark a shift.

During a news conference on Monday, Bardella said he opposes sending French troops and weaponry capable of striking targets on Russian soil.

“He is in a phase where is trying to reassure the non-NR electorate, and possibly future EU partners, but clearly the party gaining power would add a lot of tension between France and the rest of the EU,” said Roger-Lacan, who is also former deputy editor-in-chief at the think tank Le Grand Continent.

Unlike Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, who had transitioned towards more Atlantic, pro-NATO, pro-EU positions years before her election victory in 2022, Roger-Lacan explains, the NR’s conversion “sounds extremely contextual”.

Advertisement

Still, should the far right win the elections, observers note, it could end up abstaining from creating too much tremor, should it win the elections, as the group is playing the long game. It’s ultimate goal: capturing the presidency in 2027.

World

Fugees Founder Pras Michél Sentenced to 14 Years in Prison

Published

on

Fugees Founder Pras Michél Sentenced to 14 Years in Prison

Fugees member Pras Michél has been sentenced to 14 years in prison after he was convicted on charges of conspiracy and illegal foreign lobbying.

A judge sentenced Michél on Thursday after he was convicted in April 2023 on 10 counts, including violating campaign finance laws during Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection bid and illegally lobbying the Donald Trump administration in 2017. According to Billboard, Michél was handed a 14-year sentence, which will be followed by three years of probation. He was facing 22 years behind bars.

In a statement to Variety, Michél’s rep Erica Dumas said, “Throughout his career Pras has broken barriers. This is not the end of his story. He appreciates the outpouring of support as he approaches the next chapter.”

Michél was initially charged in 2019 and went to trial four years later. The trial lasted for three weeks and included testimony from Leonardo DiCaprio on behalf of the prosecution. Just last month, Michél was ordered to forfeit more than $64 million after he was found guilty of orchestrating a foreign influence campaign to coax the United States into dropping an investigation into Malaysian financier Jho Low.

Advertisement

He attempted to get a retrial after claiming that his former lawyer David Kenner, best known for representing Suge Knight in his 2015 murder case, used artificial intelligence to come up with closing arguments. In early 2024, Kenner pleaded guilty to misdemeanor criminal contempt and was sentenced to one year of probation over his handling of discovery materials in Michel’s case.

In an interview with Variety following his conviction, he outlined his plans to appeal the outcome of his case. “I’m going to fight, and I’m going to appeal, but there’s a possibility that I’m going in while I’m fighting,” he said. “It’s just the reality.”

Michél is expected to surrender to authorities on January 27.

Continue Reading

World

Lawmakers sound alarm on ‘deadliest place on earth to be a Christian’ as Nigeria violence escalates

Published

on

Lawmakers sound alarm on ‘deadliest place on earth to be a Christian’ as Nigeria violence escalates

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The U.S. House Subcommittee on Africa held a hearing Thursday on the persecution of Christians in Nigeria in what subcommittee Chairman Chris Smith, R-N.J., described as the “systematic and accelerating violence against predominantly Christian communities in Nigeria.”

Members from both parties questioned administration officials and outside experts as witness after witness described the collapse of security, mass killings, kidnappings and the impunity that has turned Africa’s most populous country into what one lawmaker called “the deadliest place on Earth to be a Christian.”

Smith, who has long been sounding the alarm about the persecution of Christians in the country, described the situation in vivid terms.

TRUMP’S WARNING TO NIGERIA OFFERS HOPE TO NATION’S PERSECUTED CHRISTIANS

Advertisement

Christians hold signs as they march on the streets of Abuja during a prayer and penance for peace and security in Nigeria in Abuja on March 1, 2020. – The Catholic Bishops of Nigeria gathered faithfuls as well as other Christians and other people to pray for security and to denounce the barbaric killings of Christians by the Boko Haram insurgents and the incessant cases of kidnapping for ransom in Nigeria.  (Photo by KOLA SULAIMON/AFP via Getty Images)

“Nigeria is ground zero, the focal point of the most brutal and murderous anti-Christian persecution in the world today,” he said.

He called the session “a very critical hearing,” noting it was his 12th such hearing and that he has led three human rights trips to the country.

Quoting earlier testimony from Bishop Wilfred Anagbe of the Makurdi Diocese, Smith cited militants who “kill and boast about it …  kidnap and rape and enjoy total impunity from elected officials.”

He highlighted a June 13 attack in Yola, saying reports showed “278 people — men, women and children — were killed in a manner too gory to describe by people shouting ‘Allahu Akbar’ while slaughtering their victims.”

Advertisement

“This is not random violence. It is deliberate persecution,” Smith said. “There may be other factors, but religion is driving this.”

Smith also noted that moderate Muslims who speak out against extremists are often murdered as well, underscoring the scope of Nigeria’s “culture of denial.”

TRUMP DESIGNATES NIGERIA AS ‘COUNTRY OF PARTICULAR CONCERN’ OVER WIDESPREAD CHRISTIAN PERSECUTION, KILLINGS

At least 51 Christians were killed in another attack in Nigeria’s Plateau state.  (Reuters)

Rep. Sara Jacobs, D-Calif., the panel’s ranking member, agreed Nigeria faces devastating insecurity but warned against “oversimplistic narratives.”

Advertisement

She cited overlapping drivers — extremist insurgencies, farmer-herder conflict and organized banditry — and said the 25 girls recently kidnapped in Kebbi state were all Muslim.

“Violence affects everyone,” she said. “False narratives erase the real drivers of violence and make it harder to find solutions.”

She condemned President Trump’s remarks about “going into Nigeria guns blazing,” calling such rhetoric reckless and illegal and said unilateral U.S. military action would be “counterproductive.”

Jacobs claimed the Trump administration cut peace-building and conflict-prevention tools that once helped reduce violence, programs, she said, “that proactively prevented and directly addressed the violence this administration is now concerned about.”

CRUZ CLASHES WITH NIGERIA OVER HIS CLAIMS 50,000 CHRISTIANS KILLED SINCE 2009 IN RELIGIOUS VIOLENCE

Advertisement

Women and children held captive by Islamic extremists and rescued by the Nigerian army arrive in Maiduguri, Nigeria, May 20, 2024. (AP Photo/Jossy Olatunji)

Rep. John James, R-Mich., described Nigeria’s crisis in stark terms. 

“This is one of the gravest religious freedom crises in the world,” he said. “The deadliest place on earth to be a Christian.”

He cited estimates that nearly 17,000 Christians have been killed since 2019, calling the murders “a sustained pattern of religiously motivated violence, often ignored or even enabled by the Nigerian government.”

Appearing on video from Benue state, Bishop Wilfred Anagbe detailed church burnings, mass displacement and priests targeted for abduction.

Advertisement

“Nigeria remains the deadliest place on earth to be a Christian,” Anagbe said. “More believers are killed there annually than in the rest of the world combined.”

He thanked the administration for putting Nigeria as a  Country of Particular Concern (CPC) for religious freedom violations but urged that it be backed with sanctions and greater humanitarian support for displaced civilians.

Two senior state department officials, Jonathan Pratt and Jacob McGee, defended the administration’s approach while acknowledging the horror of the attacks.

Pratt called the situation “a very serious security problem,” saying the U.S. seeks to “raise the protection of Christians to the top of the Nigerian government’s priorities.”

McGee added, “The levels of violence and atrocities committed against Christians are appalling. … Nigerians are being attacked and killed because of their faith.”

Advertisement

He pointed to blasphemy laws in 12 northern states that can carry the death penalty, calling them “unacceptable in a free and democratic society.”

‘GENOCIDE CAN’T BE IGNORED’: GOP LAWMAKER BACKS TRUMP’S THREAT OF MILITARY ACTION IN NIGERIA

Onlookers gather around a car destroyed in a blast next to St. Theresa Catholic Church in Madalla, Nigeria, Dec. 25, 2011, after an explosion ripped through a Catholic Church during Christmas Mass near Nigeria’s capital. (Associated Press )

Both officials said the U.S. is developing a plan to “incentivize and compel” the Nigerian government to protect religious communities.

In one exchange between Rep. Marlin Stutzman, R-Ind., and an expert on Nigeria, he asked bluntly, “Ma’am, are we frenemies? Are we — what are we?”

Advertisement

Oge Onubogu, director of the Africa Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, replied, “We’re friends.”

She added that U.S.–Nigeria engagement must be “from a place of honesty” and that Nigerians “acknowledge something must be done quickly about the levels of insecurity.”

Onubogu warned, however, that a “narrow narrative that reduces Nigeria’s security situation to a single story” could deepen divisions.

Stutzman pressed her further, noting, “If Nigeria’s government cannot stop the violence, they should be willing to ask the international community for help.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Advertisement

People gather July 2, 2014, where a car bomb exploded at the central market in Maiduguri, Nigeria, the birthplace of terror group Boko Haram.  (AP Photo/Jossy Ola)

As the hearing came to a close, Smith warned, “The Nigerian government has a constitutional obligation to protect its citizens. If it cannot stop the slaughter, then America — and the world — must not look away.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

US judge orders end to Trump’s deployment of troops in Washington, DC

Published

on

US judge orders end to Trump’s deployment of troops in Washington, DC

US president’s controversial deployment of soldiers to US cities has raised alarm and a series of legal challenges.

Advertisement

A United States federal judge has said the Trump administration must pause its deployment of National Guard troops to Washington, DC, a setback for the president’s push to send the military into cities across the country.

US District Judge Jia Cobb temporarily suspended the deployment in a ruling on Thursday, responding to a lawsuit filed by city officials who said Trump had usurped policing powers and was using the military for domestic law enforcement.

Recommended Stories

list of 3 itemsend of list

The federal government has unique powers in Washington, DC. But the Trump administration has taken the controversial step to deploy soldiers in a growing list of Democrat-led cities, despite frequent protests from state and local officials and a lack of any emergency conditions.

Cobb, who said in her decision that the president cannot deploy soldiers for “whatever reason” he wants, gave the Trump administration 21 days to appeal the order before it goes into effect.

Advertisement

Lawyers for the government slammed the lawsuit that challenged the military deployment as a “frivolous stunt”.

“There is no sensible reason for an injunction unwinding this arrangement now, particularly since the District’s claims have no merit,” Department of Justice lawyers wrote.

Trump has also deployed troops to cities such as Los Angeles, California; Portland, Oregon; and Chicago, Illinois, in what he depicts as an effort to tackle crime and round up undocumented immigrants.

Residents and civil liberties groups have documented aggressive raids and what they say are widespread rights violations and racial profiling by federal agents during those crackdowns, in which US citizens have sometimes been swept up.

Trump has threatened to imprison local and state officials who criticise his deployment of the military.

Advertisement

A legal challenge filed in September by Washington, DC Attorney General Brian Schwalb said that US democracy would “never be the same if these occupations are permitted to stand”.

Trump ordered the first deployment in August, involving about 2,300 National Guard members from various states and hundreds of federal agents from various agencies.

Continue Reading

Trending