Prior to his election as President of France, Emmanuel Macron indicated that he would seek to implement a formalised role of ‘Spouse to the Head of State’. In order he said, to put paid to a kind of ‘hypocrisy’, the role would be unpaid, and would be clearly defined. Emmanuel Macron would like that the role be officially recognised, so that the person fulfilling the role can be recognised accordingly; which sounds all well and good for any job for which a candidate applies, is evaluated and is then approved or rejected. However we are not talking about a formal job here, there is no vacancy advertised as “Spouse of Head of State” – or perhaps simply “First Spouse”.
Historically, the spouse has usually been a woman, hence the term most commonly used – First Lady. The role of First Lady is considered to have been first employed with the election of George Washington to the Presidency of the United States of America, and the subsequent hosting duties fulfilled by Martha Washington. At the time (1789), women did not routinely work and were not entitled to vote, so it was perhaps considered justified to label a woman purely in relation to the role fulfilled by her husband. Since the 18th century however, some (little & slow) progress has been made, and society seems somewhat more willing to recognise an individual’s achievement for what it is, rather than judge things and people in terms of who they marry. In light of this progression therefore, should we not put this practice under review rather than perpetuating it?
If reason exists to justify the creation of the role of a First Spouse, then one would assume that it would be possible for that role to be defined – much as Emmanuel Macron has suggested. In which case, if we can justify formalising the role and its description, then it would follow that we also create a set of criteria which need to be met by the prospective candidates. If however, this role does not have a set of criteria, or indeed if it should have criteria which is set remarkably low i.e. being married to the elected person; then we are perhaps in danger of creating a role to bring value to a person, rather than choosing a person to bring value to a role. If we are indeed creating a role to bring value to a person, is it really necessary that the entire nation, not to mention the world recognise this value? Is it reasonable to expect that the whole of the nation of France ‘bring value’ to Brigitte Macron for being married to Emmanuel Macron? Is being married to Emmanuel Macron worthy of such recognition? Is it that difficult a proposition? Or perhaps it is simply such an important task that we should venerate the person who fills the role. (Of course, we are assuming here that Brigitte would meet the criteria set for the job.)
Supposing therefore that an official role of First Spouse is created in the French system, it would seem logical that the French voters should then consider this factor when electing a President. Rather than only encouraging manifesto messages from the Presidential candidates then, perhaps there should also be messages of intent from the candidates for First Spouse. After all, with the election of one comes the other, and the electorate might not want ‘the other’. The nature of democracy is such that the people are given the choice in their government – such as it is – and thus if there is an official role for a spouse, then this automatically becomes a matter for consideration.
Alongside the question of how one becomes a First Spouse there is also the question of what happens should one be dismissed from the role… If Emmanuel and Brigitte Macron divorce during his presidency, should Brigitte then ‘lose her job’ because of her personal situation? Should Emmanuel then enter into another union, should that person automatically take-up the mantle of First Spouse? Personally, I would object to being told I am no longer employable in my current job were I to divorce, it seems on the face of it, suitable for a claim of unfair dismissal.
The assignment of a First Spouse is by no means the only example of society assigning roles arbitrarily, amongst all of the employing of friends and school-buddies there is of course that most archaic form of nepotism: the monarchy, with which the citizens of some backward-facing countries continue to contend. All of which raises the question: do we want a society which recognises the value of each individual as an individual, or are we happy to accept a society that tolerates the arbitrary dictation of the value of people based upon family connections?
Brigitte Macron taught both Literature to secondary school students, and French and Latin to Sixth form students in France during the 1980s and 1990s, however, we should not value her because she was a teacher, we should value her as a teacher, and (perhaps more importantly) as an individual. We are not all teachers or scientists, but we are all individuals, and we should be respected and recognised as such, not simply for being part of a group or a person with whom we may be associated.