Macron's high-handed rule draws Napoleonic comparisons

Pension reform and racial tensions

The situation intensified when Macron announced, in mid-2022, his intention to pass a law extending the retirement age to 64 years. This ignited the largest protests in the history of France's Fifth Republic, leaving his government unable to secure the required majority in the National Assembly.

In pictures: Protests erupt as French government raises retirement age

Consequently, Macron invoked a rarely used article of the French constitution to enact the law without a parliamentary vote, further fuelling the unrest.

Then there was a wave of outrage and protests caused by the killing of a 17-year-old French-Algerian boy at the hands of police during a traffic check in late June. The anger did not arise out of nowhere.

Read more: Dissecting France's race problem

The riots and demonstrations were the most violent to date and were characterised by a notable difference: the age group concerned. They predominantly involved France's youth – from "Generation Z." This sets them apart from previous protests, which involved older people.

Future of a nation

This latest series of protests raises a fundamental question that has not been posed so forcefully since the 1968 uprising. Where is the country heading?

The answer rests on understanding the reasons behind the latest crisis and the turbulent state of the French nation. One undisputed factor is an increasing sense of distance between the government and much of the people, leading a free society to engage in a nearly continuous series of protests, toward an eventual breaking point.

Historically, such separation occurs with a high-handed style of government. One which feels at odds with the day-to-day travails of the governed. When public awareness of such a difference grows, it brings a sense that the ruling class cares little about public opinion.

And Macron, in particular, marked a departure from the style of government prevailing since President de Gaulle's resignation in 1969. It felt like a return to Bonapartism, albeit in a different era, and one shorn of the empire that came with the previous brand of Napoleonic rule.

Macron's return to a unilateral approach to running the country came as a surprise to the French, but his tilt to a Bonapartist-style president-emperor seems evident.

He shows anger towards those who disagree with him, handles disputes with officials harshly, and chafes at the independent media.

Moreover, he transformed the parliament into a mere appendage of his presidential rule from the Élysée Palace and marginalised his prime minister.

He broadened his authority, weakened democratic institutions without reforming them, and positioned himself as the undisputed head of the system.

In some of his conversations, Macron expressed a desire for a new era where left and right political divisions disappear, enabling the republic to proceed unhindered.

It all makes him look like a Bonapartist-style president-emperor, addressing the French from above and making unilateral decisions regardless of their impact on their lives. At times, it seems like he sees himself in this way.

Different times, similar problems

But this new Bonapartism comes in a very different era than its original form. A dictatorial presidency now lacks an empire, and such examples of the over-centralised, personality-driven rule have since been associated with the turbulent politics of troubled countries in the global south.

The tendency got its inherently French name in very different times.

France was in chaos 10 years after its major revolution, and turned to a general as a saviour, as Napoleon Bonaparte returned from active campaigns against Egypt and the Levant. It put him on a path to absolute rule as Napoleon I.

The situation had changed by 1848 when Napoleon's nephew was elected as president, but the new ruler from the same family installed himself as Emperor in 1852, exploiting social and political tension in the process.  

Tragic endings

Bonapartism ended in tragedy, both times around in France and wherever else in the world the dictatorial, cult-of-personality government was tried.

Both Napoleon Bonaparte and Louis Bonaparte faced eventual defeat, at Waterloo in 1815 and then Sedan in 1870. Both led France to disaster.

It remains to be seen if the country's return to this style of rule will offer up a full repeat of history. If President Macron fails to recognise the need for reform and doesn't act before 2027, the current version of Bonapartism could potentially pave the way for a victory of the extremist right at the polls.

The prospect of this possibility worries many across Europe and around the world. If Macron is to avoid the curse of Bonapartism, he should think hard about the path he chooses.