The French are currently having their parliamentary elections and the results are making all sorts of headlines. While everyone waits to see if Marine Le Pen will finally win an outright majority in France, am more intrigued by the origins of the elections in the first place. You see, the French weren't due to hold parliamentary elections for another three before the Predisent, Emmanuel Macron called for them following the poor performance of his party at the European parliamentary elections.
Am a bit confused by the decision, even though I get the reasoning behind it. The status quo would've been frustrating to work with in parliament, but regardless a good showing would have set the tone for Macron to solidify his rule and get the backing of the French people. It seems like an unnecessary gamble to me. Am always intrigued when people are willing to give up power when others are literally ready to die on the seat. It is why people like Nelson Mandela will always be revered, because they understood what I believe to be the fundamental truth of power.
True power isn't afraid of position. Leaders in many third World countries have failed to realise this. Many kill their own citizens to hang on to the seat of power making me sometimes question my own fundamental beliefs. Yet the evidence supports this. Most sit tight leaders end up steering their citizens down a rather deep end that they can't quite wriggle out from. Many end up being kings of graveyards and deserts, rather than thriving societies. It makes me wonder why hanging on to power like it is a personal possession is even remotely considered acceptable.
Macron may have taken a big hit from his rather unnecessary election call, but I can't quite respect the decision. One shouldn't be insistent on being at the helm of affairs if rejected by the people who we claim to serve. True power is rather all too easy to give away. What's the point in being only a king of the graveyard anyways?
