Sébastien Lecornu was appointed Prime Minister of France on September 9, before resigning 26 days later, stating that “the conditions were not right for governing.” Like his two predecessors, Lecornu did not have a parliamentary majority and was therefore unable to govern effectively. In other words, he anticipated a vote of no confidence that would have prematurely ended his term.
However, in a surprising turnaround, President Macron reinstated Lecornu just 48 hours after his resignation. This unprecedented decision illustrates Macron’s stubbornness and may foreshadow his own political downfall. The French Fifth Republic seems increasingly fragile, as this constitutional crisis reveals a minority party clinging to power while refusing to compromise. As a French citizen, I find this situation deeply troubling, as it reflects a growing divide between the political elite and the general population.
What’s Different About the Lecornu II Government?
Twenty-four hours after he resigned, Lecornu appeared on national television to discuss the political impasse in France. In front of millions of viewers, he outlined, in an unconvincing manner, what he considered to be the “necessary conditions” for the next government: a cabinet based on compromise with the main parliamentary parties and ministers motivated by serving the nation rather than their personal ambitions. His words raised hopes that he might finally break free from Macron’s influence and appoint ministers more representative of the political diversity of the National Assembly.
However, these expectations were quickly dashed. The partisan balance in Lecornu’s new government remains virtually unchanged: All ministers come from a center-right party that has historically been allied with Macron.
Although Lecornu promised a streamlined and more autonomous cabinet of about 25 ministers, the new government has 34 ministers, all from the same political circle. He also promised that no ministers with presidential ambitions would be appointed, but Gérald Darmanin, a likely future candidate, remains in place.
Lecornu presents his administration as “technical,” but technocracy does not necessarily mean neutrality. Expertise alone does not guarantee independence from Macron’s overall agenda. The central challenge lies not in the competence of ministers, but in the president’s persistent interference in parliamentary affairs. Macron’s repeated interference contradicts Charles de Gaulle’s institutional vision, which called for the president to remain above political divisions.
The dissolution of the National Assembly, briefly considered in recent weeks, was ultimately abandoned as it would only have benefited the far right, projected to gain even more seats in recent polls. Meanwhile, two urgent issues dominate the government’s agenda: the budget and pension reform, both of which risk reigniting public discontent.
What Can We Expect from Lecornu Going Forward?
The absence of an absolute majority for any single party makes governance impossible without coalitions or alliances. This is precisely why Lecornu resigned, but he will ultimately be forced to make compromises if he wants to survive the vote of no confidence already scheduled for the end of the week. In his address to the National Assembly on Tuesday, October 14, Lecornu announced that he would suspend the pension reform adopted by Macron a few years ago in order to secure the support of the Socialist Party (PS), without which he would not have enough votes to pass the no-confidence vote. During his 30-minute speech, he also invoked the rhetoric of “duty” and “mission,” presenting himself as a pragmatic leader ready to “act in response to crises.” His formula for renewal consists of “political innovation” and governing “with the Assembly, not against it.” However, what he claims to be political innovation is in fact the normal functioning of the legislative branch, which, according to the Constitution, is separate from the executive branch.
He also repeated the phrase “I will propose, you will debate, you will vote” seven times, presenting his renunciation of Article 49.3—used to pass laws in Parliament—as a gesture of democratic openness. Article 49.3 of the Constitution allows the executive branch to bypass Parliament to pass a law in the event of a negative vote. The use of this article is highly controversial and has been invoked numerous times over the past decade. By renouncing Article 49.3, Lecornu hopes to restore trust with Parliament and make it more sovereign, or at least that is how his statement is understood.
This so-called break is nevertheless timid. The second Lecornu government still relies on the same technocratic core as the first, and its supposed “renewal” masks continuity. The interruption of pension reform may temporarily guarantee the support of the Party Socialist (PS), but the National Rally (RN) and La France Insoumise (LFI)—the two most powerful political forces in the Assembly—are openly opposed to Lecornu. Who knows if his possible compromise with the PS will last? In reality, the PS now holds the balance of power and is the key to the government’s survival.
Conclusion
The second Lecornu government is marked by a fundamental contradiction: it claims to embody renewal while recycling the same political formulas and the same faces. It promises compromise but continues to defend Macron’s policies. It invokes parliamentary sovereignty but remains dependent on the president’s will. This fragile balance cannot last indefinitely. Unless Lecornu manages to reconcile France’s fractured political landscape, his second term could prove as short-lived as his first and further erode citizens’ confidence in the Fifth Republic. As everyone wonders about the causes of France’s difficult situation, attention is now turning to Lecornu and the issues surrounding his budget proposal. Amid political anger and growing polarization, will France’s political elite be able to find a compromise and reach a consensus on the 2026 budget? Nothing is certain, and Lecornu’s legacy will most likely be judged by the outcome of the budget negotiations.