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.

The year 1936 has gone down in European history as the year of the Berlin Olympics under Nazi Germany. Three years before the outbreak of the Second World War, these Olympic Games were seen by Hitler as a propaganda tool to send a strong message to the world: Aryans are superior athletes. This belief was rooted in the eugenics theory that racial superiority could be explained by genetics. Of course, eugenics is at the heart of Nazi ideology and these Olympic Games of the past were the ideal opportunity to prove the hegemony of Aryan athletes; and thus defend the relevance of this ideology. However, African American athletes enjoyed enormous success in 1936, in particular Jesse Owens, famous for being the first African-American athlete to win four gold medals at the same Olympic Games. His success also left its mark on history, as Adolf Hitler refused to acknowledge Owens’ victories or shake his hand. Indeed, this famous episode, experienced as a humiliation by Hitler, underlines a major theme in sports and politics: the instrumentalization of sports by authoritarian regimes.

 But why is this so important today? Sports have been, and still are, an important form of soft power used by authoritarian and democratic rulers all over the world. In this article, I will attempt to analyze the limits and dangers of the instrumentalization of sports by authoritarian states and propose a broader description of sports as an effective geopolitical weapon for democratic states.

What does “Authoritarianism” really mean ?

Authoritarianism is a vague concept to a lot of folks. Its true meaning is poorly understood, yet roughly 40% of the world’s countries are ruled by an authoritarian leader. Simply put, authoritarianism is a political system whose main objective is to maintain the power of the ruler, come what may. regimes ignore the rule of law and democratic principles and their mandate does not depend on the consent of the people. To stay in power, authoritarian leaders use a range of strategies, from violent coercion to propaganda. Sports are a soft power tool used by authoritarian rulers to convey an ideology. But is this method effective? ? 

Firstly, sports bring people together and help build a nation. Secondly, it promotes the state’s official ideology and reinforces authoritarian narratives of national greatness. These characteristics are particularly true of totalitarian states such as Nazi Germany or present-day North Korea, whose ultimate goal is to create a utopia. In this sense, sports can be a vehicle for the state sponsored ideology. Nevertheless, sport is not always used as a means of conveying an ideology, and many authoritarian states see it simply as an effective weapon, an extension of the state’s political and economic power.

Sport and Authoritarianism: Dangers and Limits? 

These days, sports are primarily a revenue platform for authoritarian states. Several Middle Eastern countries, such as Saudi Arabia, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Bahrain, are increasingly financially involved in all kinds of sports, particularly soccer and Formula 1. In 2024, sports are attracting considerable attention and have become a global phenomenon that appeals to more and more people. The amount of money invested in and the revenues generated by the sports market are increasing rapidly, with an expected growth in revenues of over 60% by 2028. However, as sports revenues rise, so does the economic cost of hosting sporting events. 

A common trend has been observed over the past decade: unstable democracies and authoritarian states are increasingly hosting major sporting events. These states are often oil-rich countries such as Qatar, Bahrain or Saudi Arabia. As explained previously, these states use sports to convey broader political messages and achieve popular cohesion. Unfortunately, staging major events such as Formula 1 races, the World Cup or boxing matches, is financially draining and does not always benefit the economy as a whole. In fact, in many cases financing global sporting events ends up creating a greater financial burden for the population. For example, the 2022 World Cup in Qatar cost 220 billion American dollars, a huge sum that will take decades to repay, and has contributed to  the financial disparities within the country.

The protection of human rights is another major concern when it comes to authoritarian regimes hosting sporting events. In fact, most authoritarian countries lack the appropriate infrastructure and facilities to host sporting events, so they usually build these infrastructures from scratch, specifically for the events in question. Construction is often very intensive and these regimes do not hesitate to violate international laws. Most recently, Qatar, which hosted the 2022 World Cup, was targeted by numerous international organizations such as Amnesty International and Human Right Watch over the abuses committed against migrant workers and the hundreds of workers injured during the construction of half a dozen brand-new stadiums in the space of just a few years. The Qatari government has denied most of the allegations. Therefore, Qatar’s problematic situation has given rise to a real debate on the legitimacy of authoritarian regimes hosting such sporting events. 

But Why should Democratic States Care?

Colossal amounts of money are involved in hosting major sporting events, often creating significant conflicts of interest. Despite the mobilization of athletes and humanitarian organizations to denounce the abuses of host countries, democratic states have often turned a blind eye to the issue of sports in authoritarian countries. Recently, the situation has changed somewhat with the resumption of war in Ukraine. The Russian invasion of Ukraine represents the biggest ground war in Europe since  World War II. In this context, sports represents one of the many points of tension in the conflict. Sport became a veritable soft power weapon, helping to raise Russia’s profile. 

Since 2022, many Russian athletes have been denied the right to take part in sporting competitions, with the aim of penalizing Russian “soft power” and sending a strong message of support for Ukraine. One of the first victims was tennis player Danil Medvedev, who was unable to take part in a number of major tennis tournaments, including Wimbledon 2023. Despite being ranked No. 2 in the world, Medvedev and his fellow Russians and Belarusians were banned from that year’s Wimbledon. Similarly, the Russian and Belarusian delegations were banned from taking part in the 2024 Paris Olympics, a heavy sanction seen as a humiliation by both countries. Nevertheless, sports seem to be increasingly used by many as a way to condemn injustice and punish acts of impunity. For instance, Seven-time Formula 1 world champion Lewis Hamilton has repeatedly spoken out to call out Formula 1’s involvement with authoritarian and repressive regimes such as Saudi Arabia, which fail to respect human rights.

With all that said, the financial and ideological stakes of sports make it a powerful weapon for sanctioning authoritarian states and defending liberal democratic ideals, notably the protection of human rights and freedom of expression. The current state of Putin’s war in Ukraine transcends any concept of human justice and in this context, the instrumentalization of sports to attack Russia’s image and soft power seems more than appropriate. While the intersection between sports and geopolitics is not intuitive, it is essential to understanding complex power dynamics. As guardians of democratic values, it is imperative that democratic states reclaim sports as a platform to oppose oppression, foster international solidarity and lead a global commitment to justice and human dignity.

It has been an interesting week for U.S. democracy. In the last fourteen days, U.S. lawmakers have averted a government shutdown. Currently, the Biden administration is discussing how it wants to address a surprise attack in Israel from the terrorist organization Hamas.  

All of this, and the U.S. House of Representatives does not have a Speaker to assist. A Speaker of the House has not been ousted in America’s history. So, what happened? 

Budgeting 101

In order to answer this, we must examine the U.S. budget, which is passed by the Congress every year. Congress must pass all federal funding budgets, which are typically valid for a certain length of time. This process is often done yearly. Congress can also pass short-term funding bills, typically called continuing resolutions or CR, which will fund the government for anywhere between a week and a couple months. If a funding bill expires and a new one is not put in place, the government is not being funded. This means the government cannot pay its employees or maintain any federally-controlled lands, although essential employees can continue to work; such a time is often referred to as a government shutdown. 

On Sept. 29, the House of Representatives passed a CR with broad bipartisan support. However, some Republicans, among them Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-Fla.), had promised to introduce a motion to vacate the office of now-former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.) if a CR passed.  

Removal of the Speaker 

On Oct. 2, Gaetz filed his promised motion to vacate. When the motion came to a vote, all Democrats joined eight Republicans in voting to remove McCarthy. Those eight Republicans were Reps. Andy Biggs (Ariz.), Ken Buck (Colo.), Tim Burchett (Tenn.), Elijah Crane (Ariz.), Matt Gaetz (Fla.), Bob Good (Va.), Nancy Mace (S.C.) and Matthew M. Rosendale (Mont.). 

After the motion to vacate succeeded, Gaetz claimed, “Kevin McCarthy is a creature of the swamp. He has risen to power by collecting special interest money and redistributing that money in exchange for favors. We are breaking the fever now.” 

The successful vote means that the House is currently lacking an elected speaker. Patrick McHenry (R-N.C.) has been named interim speaker while the search takes place. 

Implications 

This leaves the Republican party with a leadership crisis. The Republican margin in the House is currently five votes, which means that five Republicans can defeat any measure if all Democrats oppose it. As such, this leaves radical Republicans with an outsized influence.  

Many Republicans are furious with Gaetz, and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich called for Gaetz’s removal from the Republican conference. Joseph Postell, professor of political science at Hillsdale College, said that these legislators sought to gain outside media influence. Postell told the Washington Post that “[House Republicans] are no longer incentivized to bargain with one another. They are incentivized to remain in conflict.” 

What will become of the Republican Party in 2024 and beyond is yet to be seen. But this episode will give us a picture of how Republicans choose to address a leadership crisis, and may show us how they will choose to handle Donald Trump. House Republicans are trying to show America that they can effectively govern in the leadup to the 2024 election; in the days to come, we will see Republicans try to govern their own.

On Nov. 8, Missouri voters will have the opportunity to vote “yes” or “no” on this year’s midterm election ballot in response to a proposed amendment to the Missouri constitution. 

A vote “yes” on the proposal would effectively amend Section 21, Article X of the Missouri Constitution and allow the Missouri General Assembly to increase the minimum funding required for police forces that are established by a state board of police commissioners. The amendment would create an exception to Section 21, which otherwise forbids funding increases of services unless the state specifically pays for that increase. Because the Kansas City Police Department is currently the only state-controlled police force in Missouri, the proposed amendment would only affect the KCPD and Kansas City for the time being. The primary outcome would be an increase in the KCPD’s minimum funding by 2027 without reimbursement to the city. A vote “no” would veto this proposal. 

Advocates of Amendment 4 suggest that this bill would prevent further attempts to defund the KCPD, as explained by Sen. Tony Luetkemeyer (R-34) who sponsored the measure.

“This [amendment] ensures the brave men and women in the KCPD have the resources they need to keep our city safe,” Sen. Luetkemeyer said.

Other advocates for the amendment express concern that our local officials are not equipped to make these decisions themselves: “The actions of the mayor and city council last year raised tremendous alarm regarding the stability of funding for something as important as the Kansas City Police Department,” Rep. Doug Richey (R-39) said.

However, critics of Amendment 4 argue that the proposal would be an overreach of government power, noting that every other city in the state maintains lo CXCV cal control.

“It just makes absolutely no sense that the state legislature would dictate how our local government should allocate its resources – all for the protection of the police in response to a false narrative of defunding,” Gwen Grant, president and CEO of the Urban League of Greater Kansas City, said.

Kansas City Mayor Quinton Lucas weighed in on the matter earlier this year, expressing a similar sentiment: “I do not support anything that takes away our ability to work with our local police department and neighborhood leaders in terms of how we get to better solutions for violent crime.”

While the common talking points appear to mirror a two-sided debate between Republican and Democratic parties, some argue that the issue should be a place of common ground between parties.

“This is not a Black or white issue,” Vernon Percy Howard Jr., adjunct professor of at William Jewell College, said. “This is an American issue, symptomatic of a democracy in crisis and under siege, where state overreach is rampant in the stripping of voting and governance power from the people.” 

Howard – a Jewell graduate (‘86), pastor at St. Mark’s Church in Kansas City and President of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference of Greater Kansas City – continues: “[Amendment 4] further erodes democratic principles by stripping from local communities the voice and power to determine their own policies and budgets which impact the well-being of their children, families and communities…Don’t local communities reserve the right to self-governance on key local issues?”

In 2020, Howard was also the recipient of Jewell’s Invictus Social Justice Award and the Harold L. Holliday Civil Rights Award from the Missouri branch of the NAACP for his work in organizing and educating Kansas City communities about civil rights issues and activism. With proposals such as Amendment 4, Howard emphasized that voters should be aware of their historical and local implications.

“Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr….called this kind of overreach ‘interposition and nullification,’ citing the early mid-twentieth century movement among states to disrupt and turn back the rights of Blacks to vote and gain access and inclusion within the mainstream of American prosperity,” Howard said. “Critical thinkers and 21st century global leaders own the moral responsibility to remain awake on these issues. Particularly, the Jewell educated scholar, who takes seriously one of the critical questions of our core curriculum, which is, ‘how shall we live?'”

Election Day is on Nov. 8. Registered voters in Clay County can find their polling place here, and check their registration status here. For more voter resources, click on the link here.