The Yellow Vests – the first group continuing their protests even on Christmas Eve, are now preparing for the New Year – even though their numbers have decreased despite French President Emmanuel Macron’s step back and the terror attack in Strasbourg. Having claimed Champs Elysee, the renowned avenue in Paris for six weeks now, the Yellow Vests will also be there for New Year’s Eve. They have promised that they will wear their vests but spend the night in an air of festivity in the avenue, which formerly witnessed violent protests.

So far, 10 people were killed, more than 4.500 protesters were detained and more than a thousand people were injured during the protests. Besides, more than 43 thousand fell out of their jobs, and the damages due to the protests cost the state treasury around 10 billion Euros. According to various estimations and indicators, the damage the protests have caused in the private sector might reach 4 billion Euro.

Since the beginning of the Yellow Vests protests in France, 10 people have been killed, 4,500 people have been detained and 1000 people have been injured. 

Resorting to historical references in almost every issue, the French are now endeavoring to make an in-depth analysis of the Yellow Vest movement with their historians, intellectuals, sociologists and political scientists – although they brushed the phenomenon off during the first stages of the incident. Some, including the Interior Minister Christophe Castaner, refer to the incidents in France between the two great wars. Even in the second protest, Castaner made a reference to 6 February, 1934. It is highly dubious if these two share similarities. The Cartel of the Left was a governmental group composed by the alliance of the Socialist Party, Radical-Socialist party, Independent Radicals and Republican-Socialist Party. The country was shaken by a scandal of corruption and bribery centering on a Russian Jewish broker supported by the parliamentarians. The economic crisis was deepened while the parliamentary regime was in a profound crisis. So, people gathered in the Place de la Concorde on February 6, 1932, and started marching towards the Prime Ministry in Palais Bourbon. The state buildings were under a serious threat. The police aimed and shot the demonstrators, 15 people were killed while 1435 were injured. The demonstrations, which were dominated by the far-right, fascist groups and monarchists against the parliamentary regime, went down into history as a “far-right movement,” but modern historians agree that this is not an accurate description by reminding that leftist and communist groups were also among the protesters.

Another comparison has been made with the yellow union movement. Emerging during the early 1900s, but appearing on the political scene throughout the 20th century, this movement was claimed by far-right groups who were against going on strike and fighting against bosses. They defined themselves as a local movement against Marxist unions. But this comparison was never given much credit since no similarity is apparent except for the color used.  

When a social crisis emerges in France, it is mostly referred to the 1995 strikes in France, the largest crisis experienced in the country since 1968. The protesters demonstrated against the reform package on public employees and retirement for days and went on strike, making the government take back every step it previously took. But unions were the main actors of that movement. In the case of Yellow Vests, no union is involved; they have never used a mediator. There is only one similarity, the support the then President Jacques Chirac enjoyed declined as soon as he took office – just as Macron’s case today.

Some historians likened the Yellow Vests to the 1968 incidents, to which many objected. 68 was surely a youth movement, but there is no outstanding generation in Yellow Vests. Also, 68 was against authority whereas the Yellow Vests’ main opposition is not against authority. They are essentially against Macron’s practices and the system in general. The unions were apparent in 68, and when Pompidou was trying to make an agreement, he particularly paid attention to the words of the CGT’s bosses.

France has witnessed many social protests in the past. How different – if so – are the Yellow Vests protests from previous experiences?

Besides, some groups compared the Yellow Vests with the Poujadism movement led by small business owners and artisans during the 1950s. Even Macron argues that the Yellow Vests are modern poujadists. It was a movement of the self-employed who felt downtrodden and ignored and reacted against the heavy tax load. It was ignited by a tradesman named Poujad, turned into a political movement and was positioned in the French right-wing. It was an anti-Semitic and anti-Republican movement. On the other hand, the Yellow Vests cannot be argued to be against the Republic, and there has only been a single anti-Semitist incident throughout the protests. So, this is not an accurate classification since the whole movement cannot be categorized as anti-Semitic by referring to only a single event.

Due to their populism, the Yellow Vests are also likened to Boulangism, which was prominent between 1885 and 1889. Boulangism appeared in a period when the conditions were very convenient for populism, great disturbances were seen in different segments of society, and various demands could not be addressed. The War Minister Georges Ernest Boulanger was a nationalist and a German opponent who enjoyed the support of the left, far-left and right-wing monarchists. Also compared with the Front National led by Marine Le Pen, the Boulanger movement united people from all segments complaining about the situation of the country. Boulangism’s discourse defended direct democracy and strong state while it was also nationalist and anti-Semitic. Despite being supported by different segments such as students, anti-racists and ambulance workers, the Yellow Vests do not share many similarities with this movement, either.

Macron’s power is in decline although he was initially believed to save France and Europe and was seen as an antidote to the populism virus by the Western elite.

The Yellow Vests are mostly compared with the sans-culottes of 1789, but sans-culottes did not correspond to a specific economic class despite mostly comprising mid-level tradesmen. Also, they started rioting in Paris whereas the Yellow Vests do mostly comprise those living in rural spaces or peripheries. They were very influential in the period known as the years of terror in France as they killed aristocrats, seized the properties of the rich and ravaged the streets.

Despite all these comparisons, it is commonly believed that the Yellow Vests constitute an unprecedented phenomenon. And currently, Macron’s power is in decline although he was initially believed to save France and Europe and was seen as an antidote to the populism virus by the Western elite.

Having received 34.9 percent of the vote share in the second round of the latest French presidential elections and by doubling the rate of support her father enjoyed 15 years ago, Marine Le Pen broke a record in the history of the French far-right. However, what was highlighted in the election period was the victory of Emmanuel Macron, who was elected as the new president of France by defeating center right, center left and far-right parties. Time Magazine featured Macron on its front cover as “The Next Leader of Europe.” In a tweet he wrote in French, the European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker congratulated Macron by saying: “Happy that the French have chosen a European future. Together for a stronger and fairer Europe.”

A research shows that the fortunes of the richest 500 business people in France increased by %13 during 2018 by increasing three times over the past decade.

Being the finance minister of the socialist president, François Hollande’s cabinet, and a former employee of a long-established and renowned Rothschild Investment Bank, Macron resigned and founded his party, namely “La République En Marche!” becoming the youngest president in French history at the age 39. He was promising for quite a bit and achieved a parliamentary majority. However, although the course of events had already reversed their direction, the situation became visible only a year after En Marche came to power.

Hollande, who went down in history as a terribly ineffective president, impressed all the Frenchmen for the first time when he nicknamed Macron as the president of the richest. In the meantime, a research published by the French weekly Challenges showed that the fortunes of the richest 500 business people in the country increased by 13 percent during 2018 compared to the previous year and reached 650 billion Euros in sum by increasing three times over the past decade. The research also indicated that the number of billionaires making the list of the wealthiest people exceeded 100 for the first time.

Although it seems at first sight that the protests broke out because of the rises in diesel fuel prices, the Yellow Vests received the support of %80 of the French population since its outbreak and staged four big protests that witnessed serious cases of violence, which led to severe casualties.

On October 18, in the Brittany region of France, a woman named Jacline Mouraud asked: “Where are we going to? What do you do with the money you are taking from us?” Mouraud criticized the price rises and published a video message that finished with “Enough!” The video went viral, shared by more than 6 million people on social networks. On November 17, a truck driver named Eric Drouet called people to protest by saying that “let’s block France.”

Now, there is no need to ask how they ended up organizing since the experiences around the world so far have already proven that it is now very easy to do that with present means of communication. Although it seems at first sight that the protests broke out because of the rises in diesel fuel prices, the Yellow Vests received the support of 80 percent of the French population since the outbreak of the events and staged four big protests that witnessed serious cases of violence, which led to severe casualties. While 4.099 people have been detained, four were killed and hundreds were injured during the incidents.

Although the demands of the French embodied in the Yellow Vest uprising were not answered, it cannot be said that Macron and the government remained unresponsive for three weeks. For instance, while the protests were ongoing, Macron said: “The perpetrators of this violence do not want change, they want chaos. They will be identified and put on trial.” According to French Interior Minister Christophe Castaner, the protests “created a monster.” Foreign Minister Jean Yves Le Drian stated that he understood how fragile democracy is when he heard about some uprising calls following the protests ongoing for three weeks, adding that all these jeopardize institutions and means of coexistence. Economy Minister Bruno Le Maire stated that the violence means a catastrophe for the economy and added that this is a national and social crisis of democracy. Although their justifications look different, the situation is the same for the Yellow Vests and the majority siding with them – although they did not take to the streets. What has been observed in developed countries since the 2008 crisis is a social and national crisis of democracy.

Eventually, after the fourth violent protest and prior to the fifth one, President Macron addressed the public, saying: “I take my share of responsibility. I might have hurt people with my words.” Then he announced some relief measures, which include eliminating social security tax in pensions for retirees earning less than 2.000 euros a month, and the minimum wage in France, which is around 1.200 euros, will be raised by 100 euros beginning in 2019 without setting any burden on employers. His statement on the raise in minimum wage caused some confusion, upon which journalists inquired the Elysee Palace. In fact, as required by law, the government already has to raise the minimum wage by 20 euros at the beginning of 2019. The remaining 80 euros was projected to be provided with the state’s renunciation of some social cuts. However, Macron refused one of the leading demands of the Yellow Vests, reinstating a tax on the wealthy, which he ruled out during his first term in office. 

Macron seems to have lost 15 points in support, including the votes of his own supporters over the past two months, whereas far-right Le Pen and far-left Melenchon are on a slight rise.

All in all, Macron came to be known as the president of the wealthy and the finance groups. Two different surveys conducted after his announcement show that Macron could not convince 59 percent of the French public. Also, he seems to have lost 15 points in support, including the votes of his own supporters over the past two months, whereas far-right Le Pen and far-left Melenchon are on a slight rise. This aspect of the story can be summed up in the best way with the tweet written by Steve Bannon, a former Goldman Sachs banker who was an advisor to Donald Trump. Having come to Brussels for a conference organized by far-right groups in a way reminiscent of the wolf disguised as the grandmother of the little red riding hood, Bannon tweeted: “To run a country I would rather have 100 yellow vests than 100 Goldman Sachs officials.”

The latest “Yellow Vest” protests did not break out all of a sudden. Since 2016, yellow vests have been mandatory in all French vehicles for cases of breakdowns or accidents. And lately, thousands of French people poured into streets by wearing these luminous vests to speak out about the serious breakdown in the system.

The fact that the French pay the highest prices for fuel across Europe is not the sole reason. And it is not only because the Macron government increased diesel prices by 20 percent as of the new year despite the general decline in oil prices, or because the 23 percent and 15 percent raises planned for diesel and gasoline prices under the name of “green tax.” If this were the whole issue, the surveys would not show that around 80-85 percent of the French find the Yellow Vest uprising rightful, which started on November 17 with the protests of around 300 thousand people. Or, when the government stepped back or at least postponed the price rises for 6 months, they would halt the protests in the midst of wintertime. However, they announced that they will continue, stating that while the government is offering them crumbles, they want bread.

The notion of democracy they embraced seems to have reached its limits, and now people see the streets as the only viable solution, which is dangerous although valorized in French history, especially in the current context.

This case cannot also be explained solely through macroeconomic figures and their results. It is true that the public debt of France reached around 99 percent in proportion to gross national product, whereas foreign debts reached 461.5 billion Euros. It is claimed that the Macron government tries to manage the internal debt through the taxes levied ostensibly for environmental concerns. The tax cuts from salaries climbed up to 37 percent whereas tax reduction is implemented for large companies and the wealth tax levied on the wealthy were abolished. But they are not enough to explain the uprising. Neither can it be explained through the amendment in the working law that would make dismissals easier in France, which is one of the strongest social states with solid job guarantee presenting the most favorable working conditions.

Of course, the French complain about all of them, but these aspects are not enough to explain the despair prevailing France. Formerly, people used to believe that a new government could resolve the problems with a change in political choices, which is no longer the case. Although far-right groups are the leading ones giving the quickest and sharpest reactions; people have realized that the situation will not change whether socialists or right groups take over governance.

According to reports issued by a global management consultancy company, in some industrialized countries and in five European countries including France, millions of people, both blue-collared and white-collared, will permanently lose their jobs.

Thousands of people from various backgrounds took the streets for different motivations. They mostly comprise the people living in the peripheries of metropolitan cities. They are not the poorest of the country. Even in the cities and towns with lower income levels, those taking to the streets do generally have their own houses and cars. It is not a rural movement against the urban, either. They are furious at having to pay extra costs but they are not anti-environmentalist. Muslims or blacks are not the preeminent groups in protests. Contrarily, most of them are white French people, and according to surveys, more than 50 percent of them have right-wing allegiances. But this is not an identity movement, as they suggest that they are apolitical. This very aspect is the actual threat posed against the state since they seem to have lost their belief in politics, democracy, law and the system in general. For this reason, there is no party or union active in the protests.

The yellow vests uprising is not an identity movement. This very aspect is the actual threat posed against the state since they seem to have lost their belief in politics, democracy, law and the system in general. For this reason, there is no party or union active in the protests.

In fact, the presidential elections divulged this situation. In the 2002 presidential election, Chirac’s vote share against Jean Marie Le Pen was 19.88 percent in the first round but he received more than 82 percent in the second round. Some dissident groups and media outlets, particularly socialists, propagated that Chirac was elected due to the fear of Le Pen and therefore he would reside in the Elysee Palace in the same manner as Queen Elizabeth. 15 years later, in 2017, the largest parties of both the right and left were defeated in the first round in the presidential elections that had 77 percent voter turnout, which was unprecedented.

In addition, with his newly-founded party, Emmanuel Macron received 24.1 percent vote, which was only 2.7 percent higher than Marine Le Pen’s vote share. In the second round, Le Pen received almost two times more votes than the votes her father received in 2002. So, even against the fear of Le Pen, Macron’s vote share was less than Chirac’s as he went through the elections by receiving 66.6 percent. Notwithstanding, Macron has never been looked down on as Chirac, but rather represented as a promising political figure that could save France and the EU by the current perception management tools. This is how tricky the post-truth world is!

Today, the presence of a system in which the elected governs the electorate has become a highly debated issue. Even the EU and its bureaucrats that stand as the scapegoat in this context can be considered innocent here. Since 2008, the forces of banks and finance centers have been slapping the masses in the face. People in the U.S. and Europe are aware of this fact. So, they believe that there will not be any difference no matter who comes to power in elections. On the other hand, even though they cannot fully comprehend that the dark process started with the Enlightenment four centuries ago and resulted in the mechanization of humans and humanization of machines, they can feel the darkness looming over in the air.

Everyone is apprehensive. This feeling has many manifestations, and one of them is this: According to reports issued by a global management consultancy company, in some industrialized countries and in five European countries including France, millions of people, both blue-collared and white-collared, will permanently lose their jobs. The notion of democracy they embraced seems to have reached its limits, and now people see the streets as the only viable solution, which is dangerous although valorized in French history, especially in the current context.

In France, although the rise of the far right, Islamophobia, anti-refugee rhetoric and populism do not seem to directly contradict the notions of people’s right to vote and national sovereignty at first glance, it definitely challenges the liberal democratic system that came into prominence in the aftermath of World War II. Therefore, in the context of the crisis of democracy confronted in France, we can mention a dual situation that encompasses the problems in the operation of the democratic regime and the collapse of the liberal order. In this context, the operation of the democratic regime refers to the social governance mechanisms such as public-representation relations, system of parties, voter turnout and people’s belief in the political system whereas the liberal order refers to the central political balances such as French national identity, multiculturalism, liberty, social state and liberal-capitalist values. In consideration of these aspects, this article aims to scrutinize the movements that fight against the French democratic regime and liberal order and discuss the underlying reasons for the rise of populism in France.

Problems in the operation of the democratic regime    

In today’s France, not only liberal values but the entire democratic regime and representation system are suffering a profound crisis. Viewing the surveys reflecting people’s lack of trust in politicians, the conventional political system and the substantial decline in voter turnout over the past 20 years, we can observe that the French democratic structure has been subjected to severe criticisms. People’s distrust in the representation system is disembodying the notion of national sovereignty, one of the milestones of democracy, in the long term. Based on the will of the people, just as other democracies, the French democracy is destructing itself when it cannot enable people’s determining role in governance through the representation mechanism. The distrust of French people in the system is not an ineffective phenomenon, but rather causes a set of radical changes in the French political order.

The best example portraying this situation is the political strife and polarization in France. Some developments, such as the convergence of long-established center right Republicans and far-right National Rally, the complete dissolution of the center left Socialist Party, and the rise of the vote share of the far left La France Insoumise (Unsubmissive France) to around 20 percent are all symptoms of this strife. The only conventional liberal party currently active in the French political arena is Emmanuel Macron’s La République En Marche! (The Republic on the move!), whose members mostly comprise former members of the Socialist Party and the Republicans. In a nutshell, since the French democratic system could not incorporate people’s will in its governance, it has been facing a radical transformation with the disturbance of the old former liberal balances.

Although the rise of the far-right in France began around 35 years ago with the Front National, it has influenced the discourses of other parties and dominated the present popular discourses with regard to identity, immigration, security, and Islam.

Protecting the liberal order

Liberalism is one of the most crucial characteristics of the new democratic balance that emerged in the aftermath of World War II in French history. Aiming to merge capitalism and the social state by protecting individual rights and social identity, the first traces of the liberal order were seen in the program of the National Council of Resistance (CNR) that was jointly designed by Charles de Gaulle supporters and Communist partisans in 1944. As of the post-war period, through economic growth and social movements, the French decision makers from both the right and left endeavored to defend individual freedoms alongside strengthening the independence and welfare system in France. Referred as the French liberal balance, this period prevailed between 1945 and 1975 immediately after the decline of fascism.

Nevertheless, when the French economy encountered its first stagnation, the racist and nationalist political movements repressed until then managed to resurface. The racist Front National, which gained 11% of the French vote in the 1984 European Parliament Elections, started to steer the agenda in French politics with its anti-immigrant and anti-Islam discourse. Although the rise of the far-right in France began around 35 years ago with the Front National, it has influenced the discourses of other parties and dominated the present popular discourses with regard to identity, immigration, security and Islam. As a result, the mainstream liberal parties started implementing hardline policies at least in matters relating to security. Just as many anti-Islam and anti-immigrant decisions (headscarf ban laws, establishment of Immigration and National Identity Ministry, harsh measures in security policies etc.) were issued during the Chirac and Sarkozy governments between 2002 and 2012, a series of decisions that restrict individual freedoms have been issued in recent years on the pretext of fighting against Islamization and terrorism (state of emergency and security law, uncompromising refugee policies etc.).

In view of this framework, it can be better understood why the total vote share of the racist and Islamophobic candidates in the first round of the latest presidential elections was around 46 percent (total vote for Front National, the Republicans and Debout la France). Although Macron saved the old liberal balance, the growth of the far-right and far-left parties cannot be stopped. So, it is not hard to foresee that a new illiberal balance might appear if the public anger against the liberal party continues to grow.

The poor, immigrants, and white middle class in France, which has similar sociological dynamics with the Trump electorate in the U.S., feels alienated from both the state and the state elite.

Causes of crisis in French liberal democracy

Economic approach: It can be contended that the long-standing austerity policies and worsening economic conditions of the “white middle class” are among the primary causes of the growth of populist and racist movements and people’s distrust and anger for the French political system. In this scope, the most vulnerable class affected by the restriction of French social state assistance is neither the upper class that enjoys a large economic income nor the lower classes that have the opportunity to apply for subsistence aids granted by the state. The white middle class in France, which has similar sociological dynamics with the Trump electorate in the U.S., feels alienated from both the immigrants and the state elite. The vast majority of “Yellow Vest” protesters in Paris, who have been protesting against the high cost of living and fuel prices, belong to the white middle class.

In this respect, it would be useful to remember economist Branko Milanovic’s “elephant chart” that shows the evolution of different income classes across the world. In the chart, the elephant’s torso stands for the sharp increase in the incomes of the poorest segments, who constitute half of humanity and mostly live in developing countries, while the trunk represents the upper classes of developed countries, which corresponds to 1% of the world population. The face of the elephant indicates that the income levels of middle classes in industrialized countries have been making no progress. Although it cannot be said that middle classes live under poor conditions, their quality of life is gradually declining.

All in all, as a result of the economic stagnation in France, the French middle class supporting the old liberal balance has stoked an authoritarian, populist and racist “white man’s revenge” just like the case in the U.S.

Institutional approach: Another reason for the current crisis in French liberal democracy is the delegation of a part of the French state’s sovereignty to EU institutions. When European nation states vested the EU with considerable authorities such as monetary policies, the situation began to challenge national democratic structures built on the basis of the nation’s sovereignty principle. Due to the delegation of authorities, European nations lost their controlling power on the state level and could not retrieve those rights from the political institutions of the EU. The growth of Euroscepticism in European societies stems from the impression that the EU institutions are controlled by lobbies and a privileged group who did not come to power through democratic means. Regardless of the accuracy of this view, most French people today define the Brussels-originated rules and neoliberal policies as pressure. Meanwhile, a part of the French electorate, including those with both right and left allegiances, are in search of a “savior” that can revive the national political will. In this sense, the present French liberal elite might face a decline and even be labelled as traitors.

As a result of the economic stagnation in France, the French middle class supporting the old liberal balance has stoked an authoritarian, populist and racist “white man’s revenge” just like the case in the U.S.

Social approach: Last but not least, the tension in the French liberal democratic order also stems from a long-term recession ongoing for centuries in the collectivity perception of the French society. According to French philosopher Marcel Gauchet, when the French liberal order improved, a crisis emerged in the democratic operation in a contradictory way. To put otherwise, the efforts to extend human rights and liberties by solely focusing on individuality have been detrimental to the collectivity potential of the French. For this reason, it can be argued that the French move away from religion, traditions and any kind of social ideology (such as communism and nationalism)  and focus on individual independence and freedom weakened their collective political influence and force. This dichotomy between the individual (liberal) and the collective (democratic) provides an insight into the increasing popularity of authoritarian identity politics among the French. On the other hand, such identity politics debates cause polarizations in the French public, leading people to nationalism, racism, religious extremism, communitarianism or nihilism.

Macron represents himself the voice of the liberals against authoritarian nationalists for the 2019 European Parliament elections. However, the liberal and central balances of France might confront a complete dissolution unless the economic, institutional, and social causes of the rise of populism are seriously addressed.

French President Emmanuel Macron has waged war on “fake news.” In his new year’s speech to journalists at the Élysée Palace, Macron said: “If we want to protect liberal democracies, we must be strong and have clear rules,” adding that they would strengthen their legal mechanisms to protect democracy from fake news. Although the law, which aims to fight fake news during election campaigns stirred many debates in all political spectrums, it still went through Parliament last week.

While Macron believes that the Press Law of 1881 is not enough to fight the spread of fake news through social media in today’s world, the new law especially targets social media networks and media outlets that are controlled from outside of France.

According to the new law, political parties or candidates can commence expedited legal proceedings about speculative or fabricated news during the three months before the general elections. In case of the spread of speculative or fabricated news, the news will be deleted after the proceedings, the membership of the user can be suspended, or other serious sanctions can be imposed such as banning access to the site in question.

The French audiovisual CSA (Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel) will have the authority to suspend the licenses of France-based media outlets controlled by other countries.

Just like in Germany, social media platforms such as Facebook, Google, and Twitter, will be responsible for removing fake news as soon as possible in France. When news outlets release political campaigns or propaganda tools that manipulate the electorate in a way to disrupt the election period, they will have to explain its source and the budget for endorsement.

More, the French audiovisual CSA (Conseil supérieur de l’audiovisuel) will have the authority to suspend the licenses of France-based media outlets controlled by other countries.

While Macron believes that the Press Law of 1881 is not enough to fight the spread of fake news through social media in today’s world, the new law especially targets social media networks and media outlets that are controlled from outside of France.

Although the law objectively draws attention to the modern dangers posed by social media networks and press organs affiliated with or run by foreign states in terms of shaping opinions, it substantially targets Russia and Russian media outlets. In a press meeting he held with the Russian President Vladimir Putin in May, Macron complained about Sputnik’s and Russia Today’s propaganda through speculative or fake news, although he refrained from giving any specific example. As can be remembered, during Macron’s presidential campaign, Sputnik and Russia Today alleged that Macron has a so-called “double life,” reporting a series of news alluding that Macron is financed by a wealthy gay lobby and that he has dubious relations with some American banks.

In addition, during an interview with Russian newspaper Izvestia, WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange stated that Hillary Clinton’s emails comprise some interesting information on Macron. Following this, the Washington Post commented that the Russian media strived to intervene in the French presidential elections by spreading rumors. In addition to this, Macron’s campaign spokesperson complained about the “influence of websites that are completely under Russian control and Russia’s cyber-attacks” in France. In response to Macron’s complaints on the Russian media, Russia’s Foreign Minister implied that these complaints are groundless suspicions and refused the accusations by arguing that such complaints are the consequence of the spread of the U.S.’s anti-Russia propaganda across other countries during the Obama period.

In a press meeting he held with Vladimir Putin in May, Macron complained about Sputnik’s and Russia Today’s propaganda through speculative or fake news, although he refrained from giving any specific example.

Is Macron a paranoiac? No. This is the very reason why the new law introduced in France is regarded as Macron’s personal law. It also signals that Macron is likely to run for president in the next elections.

On the other hand, a month before the April 2017 elections, a journalism project was initiated under the leadership of First Draft News of CrossCheck, which has been supported by the BBC. Many fake news that appeared during the French elections were refuted in collaboration with various news agencies based in Europe. Some head titles of these fake news included, “Emmanuel Macron received financial aid from Saudi Arabia for his election campaign,” “The French state will purchase hotels and houses worth £100 million to house immigrants,” and “The French state will replace the Christian religious holidays with Muslim and Jewish religious holidays.” More, a map shared by a social media user depicted that the acts of violence peaked in France. However, the map was actually portraying the period of the 2005 French riots, which started after Zyed Benna and Bouna Traore died by electrocution while running from police during ID check in November 2005. Soon after, protests escalated and turned into violence, involving the burning of cars. This led to the declaration of a state of emergency.

Is Macron a paranoiac? No. This is the very reason why the new law introduced in France is regarded as Macron’s personal law. It also signals that Macron is likely to run for president in the next elections.

Except for the first one, the other three incidents undoubtedly posed threats against social order. Is it possible to yield results from the attempts to shape politics, stir up chaos or manipulate society with fake news? Of course it is possible; opinion-shaping by disinformation is a common practice in the current context. Overall, such fake news did not work out in France, and did not reach the levels to threaten the societal peace or state governance. Yet, there are many countries where disinformation works, including Turkey. In the case of Turkey, the extent of fake news does not only consist of a bunch of news spread through social media. For the past five years, Turkey confronted severe threats ignited by thousands of lies spread through Twitter and Facebook, including the attempts to start a civil war and stage a military coup attempt, abetted by a superpower and its allies in the West and the Gulf countries.