Eric Zemmour has been dividing and electrifying the French political scene for years. Publicist, erstwhile journalist, presidential candidate and organization leader Reconquęte (Reconquist) — by supporters considered to be the last defender of national identity, by opponents as an utmost provoker flirting with authoritarianism. Regardless of the assessment, 1 thing remains undisputed: it can decently diagnose political tensions that many would like not to call.
In a conversation in the studio BFM tv Zemmour returns with a strong message. Already in the announcements, the talker summarizes his attitude in 1 sentence:
He dreams of unifying the right, wants to turn the table. He demands an early presidential election.
This is simply a description of his political plan, which emerges from the full conversation: going beyond the current parliamentary pushes and bringing about a complete change in the arrangement of forces, not only individual but systemic. He is not curious in the reconstruction of the government, ad hoc coalitions or the "stabilization pact". His goal is the presidential election here and now.
The background of this interview is not random. 4 days earlier, Prime Minister François Bayrou faced a deficiency of trust from the National Assembly. The future of the government is at stake. Meanwhile, Zemmour is not waiting for the situation to develop. He's ahead of it, proposing his own solution. He does not dress up in words, sketching the imagination of a country in chaos:
I've been watching this situation for months. Since the dissolution of the Assembly and the entry into the game of Mr. Barnier (short-lived Prime Minister in 2024 – ed.) we are back in the 4th Republic.
Before the conversation goes to the specifics, the talker asks for his general diagnosis: is it just another political adventure, or is it something deeper — a crisis of the regime?
Zemmour does not hesitate a moment:
This is simply a political crisis that can easy turn into a crisis of the regime.
So the conversation begins, which is not a typical debate about current events, but an effort to rebuild the full political architecture of France. Zemmour announces that he will present 3 main reasons that he believes led the country to the current collapse. He will talk about the betrayal of political elites, demographic change and the assassination of democracy by the Constitutional Council.
Although he wants to play the function of strategy disrupter today, his real political strength remains limited. In the 2022 presidential election, he won 7.07 percent of the vote — a score that disappointed his supporters but was clear for a debutante. However, the parliamentary elections a fewer months later proved to be an even greater blow. The Reconquęte organization did not win a single mandate. Even Zemmour, who competed personally, lost in his district. Despite this political cooling from the institutions, Zemmour did not vanish from the radar. present his formation balances in polls between 5 and 7 percent, but its impact goes beyond numbers. It's a voice that talks about immigration, national identity, elite crisis. Kind of acts like a catalyst. It forces the remainder of the political scene to react, even if it does not want to cooperate with it.
This interview clearly shows that Zemmour is not counting on being a coalitionist. He wants to be the center of the fresh right. His language is not seeking consent, it's seeking dominance. Hence his vision: lead to an solstice in which the old structure will collapse, and he or individual from his ellipse will stand on its rubble with a ready plan.
Diagnosis of political deadlock: Return to the 4th Republic
One of the strongest themes of the full interview is the comparison of the current political situation in France to the pre-1958 period of the alleged 4th Republic. It was a period of unstable governments, organization fragmentation, deficiency of leadership and short-term cabinets. For Zemmour, it is not only a historical analogy, but a correct diagnosis of what is happening today.
We are back in the 4th Republic. Ephemeral governments that cannot make hard decisions. Political class busy with interior games, incapable to govern.
From its perspective, France lost 1 of the foundations of the V Republic established by de Gaulle: a strong execution based on a unchangeable president and government. present the strategy is based again, as he claims, on organization puzzles and common decision-making paralysis.
We have a organization regime. Not the ones who won the election, the ones who can get along with the behind-the-clock combinations.
Zemmour speaks of "the inability to run the state", which he believes is beyond the limits of the average political crisis. It is not only a hard word or a weak majority in parliament, but a symptom of a deeper illness of the system. The crisis is no longer solely about the political class, affecting the governance model itself.
It's no longer a specified instability. It's a government that ends. And erstwhile the strategy runs out, it needs to be changed. And this is where we are.
A comparison with the 4th Republic is more than an awesome mot voucher for Zemmour. This declaration: the present France needs a fresh start. He sees himself not as the leader of the opposition in the old order, but as 1 of those who prepare the ground for something new. This is why he is not curious in a sagad as Prime Minister or a fresh parliamentary majority. His proposal is to reset the full system.
The 3 causes of the regime's crisis: betrayal of the right, demography, justice of democracy
Before any numbers or names die, Zemmour announces that his diagnosis will not be superficial. It is not just about the momentary turmoil of power, it is about something much more serious. The crisis we are witnessing is in his opinion the consequence of long-term structural changes. It points to the 3 main reasons which it considers to undermine the foundations of the French political order.
I'll tell you what the origin of this situation is. That's not Bayrou, not Barnier, not Macron. It's something much deeper. 3 things that hit the very heart of the V Republic.
I. Rejecting an alliance with Le Pen
The first origin is political-historical. Zemmour reaches to the 1980s and the decision of the then right-wing leaders to cut off from Jean-Marie Le Pen. This, according to him, was the turning point that pushed the conventional right to a collision course with its own electorate.
It all started erstwhile Jacques Chirac decided not to ally with Le Pen. And that pushed the right to the center.
As a result, as he argues, the centreright lost its identity and in the long word became a hostage to alliances with socialists and macronists. Today, he believes that groups from RPR and UDF no longer represent the right, but are part of the same "third force" that only manages the dissolution.
II. Demography and identity crisis
The second origin is of a social and even civilizational nature. Zemmour argues that France has experienced a fundamental demographic change which translates into a change in the nature of political conflicts. It is no longer a dispute between the rich and the poor, but a tension between France "core" and "imported".
Throughout the prime age, social division was a major division. Now it's an identity split. We have a fresh people in the old country. A fresh society in society.
This is why conventional parties cannot solve problems. They proceed to operate on schemes of redistribution, benefits, public services, while the actual dispute concerns who has the right to be at home. According to Zemmour, the key question is:
Will the French stay majority on their own land?
It points out that this is not only a question of the number of migrants, but besides of their culture, religion, aversion to assimilation. And he puts a hard thesis: parties who do not realize it are politically dead.
III. Constitutional Council as fresh government
The 3rd reason for the crisis concerns the institutions. Emmour attacks the Constitutional Council, accusing her of becoming an uncontrolled centre of power. In his narrative, these are not constitutional guards, but "priests" who have assumed legislative and executive functions.
The Constitutional Council is simply a kind of theocracy today. We're ruled by people that nobody has chosen, that nobody knows, and who tell the government what to do.
He claims that this evolution was never foreseen by the creators of the V Republic. On the contrary, de Gaulle would consider her a coup. For Zemmour there is no doubt: this is another manifestation of systemic distortion.
De Gaulle said plainly: in France the only ultimate court is the nation. Nobody says that anymore.
The 3 reasons he mentions are consistent: France is simply a country of betrayed right, broken identity and distorted democracy. It's not about exchanging politicians. It's about the end of the full political cycle.
Bayrou Fall: Tactical mistake or Political Suicide?
At the heart of the current political crisis is François Bayrou, the Prime Minister, who was to act as a stabiliser a fewer months ago, and present becomes a symbol of the power of executive power. Zemmour doesn't beat around the bush. Whenever a leader asks him how he would vote as a deputy, he answers without hesitation:
I wouldn't vote to trust François Bayrou.
For Zemmour it is not only a individual question, but a logical consequence of his general diagnosis. Bayrou has neither a mandate nor a plan nor authority. And there's definitely no majority. He sees a vote of assurance as incomprehensible political naivety.
It's not courage. It's stupid. To effort to gain trust from people who say no to you in advance? It's political suicide.
The leader is trying to propose that possibly it was an honorary gesture: go on short circuit alternatively of being suspended. Zemmour remains implacable. In his opinion, it was simply a demonstration of weakness that had nothing to do with either courage or strategy.
It wasn't chivalrous. That was unreasonable. It would be better to wait for a motion of distrust, then possibly individual would hold off. Oh, yeah? Shot to the knee.
In this part of the Zemmour discussion, he goes on to criticize the parliamentary strategy in its current edition. Bayrou points out the misapplication of Article 49.1 of the Constitution, which allows the Prime Minister to ask for a vote of confidence, in contrast to the celebrated 49.3, allowing the bill to be passed without voting unless a motion for a vote of distrust is made.
Everyone's talking about 49.3, but it was 49.1. And that's completely different. In 49.3 the Prime Minister can last by holding back. And at 49.1, if you don't have a majority, you just lose.
From Zemmour's perspective, this was not a power struggle, it was a failed effort to keep the remnants of control. No sense of timing, no vision, no back room. All of this together gives an image of a policy that should never have taken the lead in the government. In this assessment, Bayrou is not a individual to argue with about the program. He is in Zemmour's eyes the product of a fallen system, a symbol of his powerlessness. That's why his fall doesn't give the leader the Reconquisty of compassion. It's natural. Necessary. Or possibly even late.
To realize this matter, you request to scope out to the regulations themselves. Article 49 of the Constitution of the V of the Republic concerns the relation between the Government and the National Assembly and its individual paragraphs enable different forms of gaining or losing confidence.
Article 49.1 allows the Prime Minister on his own initiative to ask the Assembly for a vote of confidence. It is simply a political motion that strengthens the position of government — but only erstwhile it has a majority. If he does not get the required number of votes, the Prime Minister must resign. The regulation is simple: you ask for trust, you gotta get it.
Article 49.3 It works backwards. The government may adopt the bill without voting unless a motion of distrust is submitted and voted in response. It is simply a tool of force that has been utilized repeatedly, although it has always been controversial. There is no request for the majority “for” — it is adequate to deficiency the majority “against”.
Zemmour emphasizes that Bayrou has chosen the most risky form of confrontation, despite the deficiency of a real backdrop.
Bayrou himself planted himself on a vote he couldn't win. He had no advantage, no plan. Just a sense that something needs to be done.
Le Pen silent: tactics or resignation?
While Zemmour calls for a "turnover table" and demands immediate presidential election, Marine Le Pen remains amazingly passive. Within a fewer minutes, respective clear references to her attitude — cool, conservative, waiting. To Zemmour, it's not just a tactical error, it's proof that Le Pen has come to terms with the current system.
She's already set up. She wants to wait until 2027. It's a waiting strategy, not action.
In the eyes of Zemmour, this is the worst possible attitude in the face of the political crisis. As the country plunges into organization chaos, the leader of the largest opposition formation does not come up with any proposal. It does not mobilize, it does not undermine the system, it does not request change. Zemmour does not say it directly, but suggests that it is simply a form of quiet collaboration with the system.
It's not the opposition. It's waiting in line. Who fights for power like that?
The writer provokes, asking: “Maybe he’s just being responsible? Does it not pour fuel into the fire?” But Zemmour responds without hesitation — in his understanding, liable policy is 1 that responds to the real state of the state and does not care only about its own ratings.
When the home burns, you don't stand by and number interest. You take the bucket and you go out, or you scream loudly that you gotta build again.
At this point, Le Pen's interview becomes not so much an opponent as a symbol of what Zemmour rejects: defensive policy, closed to risk, functioning in the rhythm of the election calendar, not the logic of the situation.
She doesn't want a revolution. She wants succession.
In between the words, the question arises: does Le Pen truly want power, or is her position of eternal candidate sufficient? Zemmour does not respond directly, but all his rhetoric indicates that he sees in her individual who has already “entered the system” — and can so no longer overthrow it.
Le Pen silent: tactics or resignation?
While Zemmour calls for a "turnover table" and demands immediate presidential election, Marine Le Pen remains amazingly passive. Within a fewer minutes, respective clear references to her attitude — cool, conservative, waiting. To Zemmour, it's not just a tactical error, it's proof that Le Pen has come to terms with the current system.
She's already set up. She wants to wait until 2027. It's a waiting strategy, not action.
In the eyes of Zemmour, this is the worst possible attitude in the face of the political crisis. As the country plunges into organization chaos, the leader of the largest opposition formation does not come up with any proposal. It does not mobilize, it does not undermine the system, it does not request change. Zemmour does not say it directly, but suggests that it is simply a form of quiet collaboration with the system.
It's not the opposition. It's waiting in line. Who fights for power like that?
The writer provokes and asks: “Maybe he's just being responsible. Doesn't he put fuel in the fire?“ But Zemmour answers without hesitation. In his understanding, liable policy is 1 that responds to the real state of the state and does not care only about its own quotations.
When the home burns, you don't stand by and number interest. You take the bucket and you go out, or you scream loudly that you gotta build again.
In this part of the conversation Le Pen becomes not so much an opponent as a symbol of what Zemmour rejects: a defensive policy, closed at risk, functioning in the rhythm of the election calendar, alternatively than the logic of the situation.
There is besides a more ideological blow:
Marine Le Pen is simply a socialist with a three-colour flag.
Zemmour accuses her of abandoning her conservative identity right to populist interventionism. In this he sees not only a mistaken programming direction, but besides evidence of the failure of any coherent imagination of the state.
Nor does he spare the younger face of Rassemblement National, Jordan Bardella:
Jordan Bardella plays a liberal role, but it's just a performance.
According to Zemmour, Bardell is to be a facade of modernity and moderation, but behind this facade there is nothing but calculation and PR. Neither Le Pen nor Bardell have the courage to break up with the system. Their strategy is to fit into his rhythm and wait patiently.
She doesn't want a revolution. She wants succession.
In between the words, the question arises: does Le Pen truly want power, or is her position of eternal candidate sufficient? Zemmour does not respond directly, but all his rhetoric indicates that he sees in her individual who has already “entered the system” — and can so no longer overthrow it.
Elections now, not in 2027: Zemmour's plan
In the second part of the Zemmour interview, it goes from diagnosis to proposal. He doesn't want to patch the system, he doesn't offer half-measures. Its solution is extremist and unambiguous: fresh presidential elections here and now. Without waiting for 2027, without negotiating with the current authority, without seeing whether it is "constitutionally fit".
There's nothing to wait for. erstwhile the foundations are rotten, you don't ask the architect for permission. You're storming.
Zemmour sees Emmanuel Macron's current mandate as an extortion — formally legal but unauthorized. The power no longer comes from the choice of citizens, but from the game of institutions. Therefore, even changing the Prime Minister, or any reconstruction of the government, does not substance in his opinion.
Macron no longer rules. He manages the breakdown. It's not the presidency, it's the regency waiting for the crash.
For Zemmour, the key question is not "can elections be held before", but "can the state proceed to function in the current state". In his eyes, it's a crisis ahead of the calendar. And if the politicians don't velocity up the decision, the events will do it for them.
We can have elections now — or next year, after the riots, the fall of governments, the embarrassments. The choice is simple.
Importantly, Zemmour does not say that he has to run. At least not in this interview. But his rhetoric leaves no uncertainty that he sees himself as the chief architect of the fresh order — a man who not only criticizes but besides gives direction.
I don't want to change the face of the system. I want to topple it.
This quote summarizes his full strategy. For Zemmour, the current V Republic does not request cosmetics, but ends. And it's only erstwhile everything falls that you can start talking about politics again.
The language of discord: the brutal rhetoric of Zemmour
It is impossible to realize the effectiveness of Éric Zemmour without looking at what he says. His message is not based on program, numbers, or bill proposals. It is based on a sharp, uncompromising language, full of tension. It's not a polemic style. It's the rhetoric of political war.
It's no longer a specified instability. It's a government that ends.
Zemmour does not build statements on doubts, leaves no margin of interpretation. His sentences are simple, categorical, frequently two-member: either–or, my–they, formerly–today, republic–chaos. It is simply a language of pure polarization, without nuances — and that is why it is effective.
We have a fresh people in the old country. A fresh society in society.
His statements have the rhythm of the manifesto, not analysis. Even if he talks about the constitution, he does it in an emotional way. He's not explaining. He's attacking. He's not considering, but he's making a diagnosis. It's a kind that doesn't search consensus, it's a kind that doesn't search consensus. cause reaction.
We're ruled by people that no 1 has chosen, that no 1 knows.
What's crucial is what Zemmour doesn't do. He doesn't usage technocrats. It does not talk about "legislative flows", "institutional frameworks" or "political processes". Instead: betrayal, fall, regime, lie, fiction, deception. all word carries an evaluation.
Macron no longer rules. He manages the breakdown.
It is an utmost language, but an attractive language in a crisis. It doesn't offer hope, it offers designation of fear. Zemmour doesn't promise a better tomorrow. He says today's country is simply a lie, and the only way is to turn everything upside down.
I don't want to change the face of the system. I want to topple it.
That's no way to negotiate. It's not the rhetoric of a candidate looking for a majority. It's the voice of a political revolutionary who doesn't want to fit in, but who wants to lead to solstice.
A revolution without an army?
When the conversation on BFM tv is over, Zemmour is left alone on stage, symbolically and politically. Marine Le Pen is silent, centre-right is broken, left is busy. Yet despite all the strong words, extremist diagnosis and clear rhetoric, 1 question hangs in the air: does Zemmour have the strength to accomplish what he preaches?
It's not about charisma. She's got this one. It's not about designation either. She is 1 of the most frequently cited characters in French media. Problem is, his revolution doesn't have structures yet, people or terrain. The Reconquęte organization suffered defeat in the parliamentary elections. It does not be in the Europarliament. In local government, too. It's not a camera that can take over. It's a platform for speeches.
I may not have any deputies, but I'm right.
That could be the unspoken chorus of this interview. Zemmour plays in a different league from classical politicians from the beginning. I don't want to be an MP. I don't want to be a minister. He wants to be a political minute — individual who puts specified force on the strategy that it breaks itself.
But time works against him. His voters, those who voted in 2022, part ways. any return to Le Pen, any retreat at all. The younger sympathize with Bardella, the older stay loyal to Republican schemes. Critical mass is missing. And yet his presence in the debate does not weaken. possibly due to the fact that no 1 else says what he says — in specified a way, at specified risk, with specified consequences.
We're on the eve of the large solstice. The question is: who will lead them?
This evening, at the BFM tv Zemmour studio, there is no clear answer. But he's doing everything he can to make his name the first to come to head erstwhile France starts to wobble again.
![A gdyby śmierci nie było? [o „Trzecim królestwie” Knausgårda]](https://krytykapolityczna.pl/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Szablon-rozmiaru-obrazkow-na-strone-2.png)
