From Ballot Boxes to Budgets: When Democracy Influences Your Wallet

Over the past two decades, traditional parties in France and Belgium have gradually lost the trust of a significant portion of voters. This disillusionment is expressed in two complementary ways: a historically high abstention rate and a regular rise in votes for more radical parties. Not voting is also a form of democratic expression, often used to send a clear message to political leaders: “You are not responding to our needs.”

In France, the alternation between the left and the right has been marked by scandals, broken promises, and internal quarrels, which have fueled frustration. In Belgium, complex coalitions and the so-called “sanitary cordon” around certain parties create the impression that the will of a large part of the electorate is underestimated. For citizens, this climate translates into a feeling of instability and uncertainty, which naturally spills over into economic and financial behavior.

When doubts about political leadership grow, households tend to be more cautious: they postpone important projects, delay home purchases, or hesitate to commit to long-term financing. Lenders, for their part, closely monitor these developments, because political tension and institutional blockages can have a direct impact on economic growth, employment, and ultimately on credit risk.

Republican Pacts, “Sanitary Cordons” and Their Economic Side Effects

In France, the so‑called republican front was designed to block the rise of the far right by uniting traditional parties in the second round of elections. In Belgium, a similar logic exists with the “sanitary cordon,” where some parties exclude any coalition with certain political movements. Although these strategies aim to defend democratic values, they also convey a paradoxical message: a part of the electorate has the feeling that its vote does not really count.

This perception can gradually undermine confidence not only in politics but also in institutions more broadly. When citizens doubt the representativeness of their leaders, their trust in long‑term public policies (taxation, pensions, housing support) weakens. This uncertainty weighs on their financial decisions: borrowing to buy a property, renovating a home, starting a business, or consolidating debts.

Conversely, when parties that have been strongly supported by voters are called to govern and are held accountable, citizens can better assess the quality and impact of the policies implemented. In a more transparent and predictable environment, lenders and borrowers alike can project themselves more calmly, which is favorable to healthy, responsible access to credit.

France and Belgium: Two Political Systems, Shared Financial Stakes

In France, the succession of elections has often given rise to “tripartite” second rounds, where voters must choose between three main options, including far‑right candidates. This configuration forces traditional parties to position themselves, either by maintaining a republican front or by adopting “neither-nor” strategies. These choices send strong signals to both the markets and European partners, who follow closely the stability of the French political landscape.

In Belgium, the situation is just as complex. With a majority of Flemish voters and significant support for parties advocating greater autonomy, federal coalitions are often long and difficult to form. When a Prime Minister openly rejects the idea of governing with a party that represents a large part of the electorate, this can reinforce polarization and feed a sense of exclusion among certain citizens.

For households, the question is practical: will my income, taxes, and access to credit be affected? Political deadlocks can delay reforms, complicate budget negotiations, or create tensions within the euro area. Each of these elements can influence interest rate levels, eligibility criteria for loans, and the confidence with which banks grant financing to individuals and businesses.