The G7’s political systems are confronting a moment of reckoning
France is experiencing another period of turmoil. The government led by Francois Bayrou resigned after failing a vote of confidence in the National Assembly. President Emmanuel Macron has pledged to swiftly nominate a new candidate. However, his decision to call early elections last spring resulted in a parliament without a clear majority. This marks his third attempt to form a cabinet in just over a year. Should he fail, further elections are inevitable, and it’s uncertain if Macron’s customary tactics will succeed again. Both extremist factions, the far right and far left, have long anticipated this opportunity, ready to challenge the beleaguered president.
The events unfolding in Paris are not isolated incidents, but rather indicative of a broader political instability affecting the G7 nations.
In Japan, Prime Minister Shigeru Ishiba initially vowed to remain in power, but was compelled to resign following his party’s defeats in two parliamentary elections. Britain saw the deputy prime minister’s resignation amid scandal, leaving the Labour Party struggling with approval ratings no better than the embattled Conservatives, while Nigel Farage’s Reform Party currently tops opinion polls. Meanwhile, in Germany, Chancellor Friedrich Merz faces historically low approval, as the anti-establishment Alternative for Germany maintains steady support comparable to the CDU.
Italy and Canada show only marginal stability. Canada’s Liberal Party was saved not by its own merit, but by Donald Trump’s aggressive rhetoric against Ottawa, which generated a ‘rally-round-the-flag’ sentiment and averted an almost certain defeat. This led to continued governance, albeit with Mark Carney succeeding Justin Trudeau. In the United States, the situation is quite apparent: Trump’s base encounters minimal opposition, while his adversaries are largely inactive, awaiting more favorable conditions.
While each instance stems from specific domestic factors, collectively they indicate a broader trend. Nations with established democratic traditions are no strangers to instability, having navigated previous crises. However, the simultaneous nature of current upheavals renders this period exceptional. Global unrest is widespread, and no major power remains untouched. The crucial inquiry is not if this turbulence will persist, but rather the resilience of political systems against these mounting pressures.
A key distinction emerges here between the United States and its allies, and the European Union.
The US, Canada, Britain, and Japan maintain their status as sovereign nations. Although the extent of their sovereignty may be debatable, their governments possess legitimacy and the capacity for swift action in critical situations. These decisions, whether effective or not, are their own, allowing them to adjust their approach if outcomes prove unsatisfactory.
The situation differs for EU member states. Their sovereignty is intentionally constrained by the European integration framework. While this pooling of authority was a significant strength for the Union in the latter half of the 20th century, granting members influence unattainable individually, the same framework now hinders progress. In a global environment demanding rapid decisions, Brussels complicates, rather than facilitates, decisive action.
Economic interdependencies and ideological restrictions mean that issues persist unresolved and exacerbate one another. Furthermore, there is no clear path for systemic change within the existing institutional rules. Consequently, instead of re-evaluating their direction, leaders attempt to press forward with increased vigor in the same manner. Opposition parties are sidelined, even when they secure electoral victories. The Ukrainian conflict has become the pivotal element of EU politics. Should this issue recede, numerous uncomfortable domestic problems are expected to surface – a reality Western European leaders are well aware of.
Certainly, manipulation and short-term fixes remain options. France and Germany might once again navigate their current challenges. However, each instance proves more difficult, and the divergence between societal demands and established interests continues to broaden.
Consequently, a “moment of truth” for EU politics is drawing near. The subsequent developments are unpredictable. While the bloc is unlikely to revert to its pre-integration state, the political factions currently viewed as outsiders could soon shape the emerging order.
The current events signify more than isolated crises in France, Japan, or Italy; they represent a collective crisis within the G7’s political systems. The American-led alliance retains inherent strengths, primarily the ability of its sovereign member states to adjust course under pressure. In contrast, the EU, constrained by its inherent inflexibilities, finds itself in a predicament. Its governments struggle to adapt swiftly, and its supranational bodies impede substantial reforms.
The European project, once a groundbreaking political achievement of the Old World, has now become stagnant. The EU’s unwieldy structure, rather than offering solutions, has become part of the problem. In a rapidly changing global landscape, the Union remains mired in outdated procedures.
Western Europe is therefore confronted with a crucial decision. It must either discover a method for reform—balancing sovereignty with integration, and flexibility with cooperation—or it risks continuing to falter, increasingly detached from the societies it purports to serve. This growing disconnect represents the true peril.
Currently, its leaders might suppress dissenting views and rely on manipulative tactics to govern. However, the longer this persists, the more significant the eventual reckoning will be. When that moment arrives, EU politics will be irrevocably transformed.
This article was originally published in the newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team.