In my humble opinion, France is one of the world’s greatest countries. It is a beautiful country with elegant cities, magnificent countries, lofty mountains and (albeit decreasingly), unspoilt beaches. It has punched well above its weight in its contributions to philosophy, economics, art, music, science and literature. Having been devastated by World War 2, it successfully rebuilt, surpassing rival powers such as Britain and Russia until the late 1970s, in large part because its leaders decided it would be at the heart of Europe.

Since the late 1970s, France has been in relative decline. Britain’s entry into the Single Market and the ‘Big Bang’ in financial deregulation meant it caught up and has since overtook its fiercest rival. Now unbridled by Communism, Russia has experienced very high levels of economic growth until very recently. Russia has also regained some of its influence it lost on world affairs since the collapse of the Soviet Union. In addition to this, France’s industries are notably less competitive than Germany’s, despite the two countries being in the Euro and adopting very similar fiscal policies.

The feeling of relative decline from what had been an economic, military and culture superpower, has induced a new nationalism into the French policy. Marine Le Pen, the woman almost certain to finish first in the first round of this year’s presidential election, talks of restoring national greatness. Unbridled by the excessively cosmopolitan and liberal EU, Le Pen promises a new era of French supremacy. Much like Donald Trump or the UK’s Leave campaign, Le Pen’s employment of nostalgia for a bygone era is crucial to her success.

However, French voters should not be fooled. France didn’t get rich by cutting herself off from the international markets, but by being at the heart of them. The country benefits enormously from trade, and would suffer immeasurably from reducing it. Its also worth pointing out that reducing immigration would not restore the country to its former glory. The average Frenchmen is very highly skilled and well educated, which is something to be proud of. But low-skilled work still has to be done, and very often, it is immigrants and their descendants that do work seen by most as undesirable.

Le Pen’s nationalism may have a great deal of emotional appeal, and there is certainly something to be said of it. Too often, the liberal centre has relied on dry statistics and the views of various think tanks, instead of making a compelling argument with an emotional resonance as well as an intellectual one. Having said that, a resurgence of French nationalism would be to the detriment of all of Europe. The continent faces an American administration that is at best, ambivalent about the EU collapsing (http://www.vox.com/world/2017/1/16/14285232/trump-eu-nato-interview). Meanwhile, Vladimir Putin violates European territorial integrity in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine, and props up Assad, the Syrian dictator that brutally suppressed his political opposition, resulting in a civil war and the worst refugee crisis since the 1940s. Since Europe has no great allies beyond its borders, it can only faces the challenges of today if European nations are willing to work together. Supranational issues- climate change, the refugee crisis and terrorism notwithstanding- demand a coherent supranational response.

Since Le Pen would not work with the EU so much as ally herself with Trump and Putin to undermine it, what of the alternatives? When Francois Fillion won the Republican primary, many French conservatives rejoiced.  Here was a man who would finally reform France’s bloated public sector, and cut it down to size. They also saw his Christian conservatism as a bulwark against the country’s increasingly liberal attitudes, as evident in the introduction of gay marriage under Hollande. For some, Fillion was the respectable face of nationalism- sufficiently anti-immigration and anti-Islam, without the overt jingoism and xenophobia that still plagues the Le Pen dynasty. But regardless of what is to be made of Fillion’s policies, he has come under allegations of severe corruption, having allegedly paid his wife public money to work as a parliamentary assistant. (http://q13fox.com/2017/02/02/evidence-mounts-against-french-presidential-frontrunner-in-penelopegate-scandal-tmswp/) As Clinton’s failed presidential run showed, it is important not to be tainted by allegations of scandal, even if you believe the allegations to be untrue.

The Left’s candidates are equally unsuitable for office. Benoit Hamon may be to the left of Hollande. But he is still a member of the governing Socialist Party, which has presided over continued economic stagnation and has refused to reform the public sector for fear of its union allies. Despite his populist rhetoric, a Hamon presidency would not be very different from Hollande’s. Comparisons between Hamon and Jeremy Corbyn are overblown, with the former being far more friendly to the establishment than the latter. France’s nearest equivalent to Corbyn is Jean-Luc Melenchon, who is running as an alternative left wing candidate. Melenchon’s frustration at France’s poverty and inequality is understandable, and despite spending large sums of money, the French state often provides poor public services to its citizens; education in the working class and ethnic minority banlieues is the obvious example. But Melenchon is too radical to be considered a serious candidate. While France ought to improve public services and reduce inequality, the country can’t afford to spend more money. The over-centralised and inefficient state must be modernised and the budget deficit reduced before additional funding be considered feasible. Melenchon’s Euroscepticism and opposition to NATO, while perhaps having a different ideological grounding than Le Pen’s, would still leave Europe less secure and more divided.

Which leaves Emanuel Macron, who must be considered the man for the job. Macron believes in public sector reform, but unlike Fillion, does not set unrealistic targets for doing so. Macron may be an economic liberal, but he has sufficiently distanced himself from Thatcherism so as not to be considered a threat to the country’s working poor. More importantly, Macron is a friend of the EU. Unlike Le Pen, he does not consider Trump and Putin to be allies, nor Brexit a positive phenomenon. He would strengthen ties with France’s neighbours. He would repudiate the far-right’s xenophobia, by accepting the EU’s quota for refugees. He supports free trade, while expressing a healthy scepticism of some of the details in TTIP. He would work with other European countries to improve the quality and coherence of governance, while empowering local communities through a long-overdue program of decentralisation. Finally, he is the most socially liberal of the presidential candidates, and would seek to create a tolerant and pluralistic society, in France’s fine secular tradition.