RIGHT now, I’m not even asking for a French government that matches all my ideals perfectly. I just want one that I can live with – one that, while not perfect, gets the important things done and works well overall.

This is what compromise in politics looks like. Sadly, after raising so much hope, the French left is putting on a disappointing show by failing to understand this basic concept. The ongoing debate within the Nouveau Front Populaire (NFP) about who they should nominate for France’s next prime minister highlights a bigger issue: a misunderstanding of what compromise means in politics, especially when no party or coalition has a majority.

Let’s not forget that the left came out on top in the snap legislative elections with 182 MPs, but they’re still far from having an overall majority in the 577-seat National Assembly.

Under the Constitution of the Fifth Republic, the president has the power to appoint the prime minister, and if he has good reasons to reject a candidate, he will. And be under no doubt that the blame of the political quagmire will not rest on Emmanuel Macron, but on the left.

On Monday, Laurence Tubiana, a well-respected economist and former COP21 ambassador, was put forward by the Socialist Party (PS), the French Communist Party (PCF), and the Greens as their pick for prime minister.

Almost immediately, France Insoumise (LFI), the radical left group, launched a social media offensive, calling her an unacceptable, unserious choice.

READ MORE: Caitlin Logan: Government must ensure rights of non-binary people aren't left behind

This whole debate over Tubiana’s nomination kicked off after Huguette Bello – initially backed by La France Insoumise, the Greens, and the Communists – withdrew her candidacy.

Bello stepped down because the Socialists weren’t on board, which led to Tubiana’s name being proposed as a compromise.

With her strong background in environmental and social issues, Tubiana seemed like a solid choice to help unite the left. Looking at Laurence Tubiana’s career, it’s clear she would make a great prime minister. She’s got the right mix of strong values and the ability to handle tough negotiations.

Just think about her key role in the Paris Agreement during COP21. As the French climate ambassador and a top negotiator, she helped get over 190 countries to agree on this landmark climate deal.

Tubiana’s knack for bringing together the different positions of developed and developing nations – and finding a consensus that works for everyone – shows her talent for making crucial compromises that move important goals forward.

However, Tubiana’s nomination has faced pushback, especially from La France Insoumise.

They worry that her potential alignment with President Emmanuel Macron’s policies might weaken the NFP’s commitment to radical reforms, like increasing the minimum wage and abolishing the pension reform. This concern stems from a past interaction that needs some context.

A few years ago, Macron was looking to bring left-wing figures into his government and approached Tubiana. She turned him down, showing her independence from Macron’s administration and her dedication to her own values and goals. Despite this, some still claim Tubiana is too close to Macron, which is simply not true.

Her refusal to join his government proves she’s committed to her principles rather than compromising with a centrist agenda.

READ MORE: Everything you need to know about the King's Speech as parliamentary term starts

This latest left-on-left squabble highlights a bigger issue: the misconception that compromise means abandoning principles.

In reality, it’s about finding common ground to advance key parts of a broader agenda. Tubiana’s nomination is a perfect example of this strategic approach. She’s a respected figure with a strong commitment to crucial issues that align with the core values of the NFP. Her candidacy aims to unify the left and present a figure that even centrists and conservatives can’t easily dismiss.

France is in continental Europe, but right now it feels like we’re living on our own little island, missing out on seeing how effective compromise can be in governance. Other European countries provide clear examples of how this works, like Germany with its “Deutschlandticket.”

This policy, which offers affordable public transportation across the country, came about through tough negotiations between the Greens and the Free Democratic Party (FDP).

The negotiations for the Deutschlandticket were challenging and required significant trade-offs. The Greens had to make some concessions, and the FDP agreed to parts of the policy they initially opposed.

Despite the difficulties, they ended up with a policy that all parties could get behind, showing a government where each party had a stake in the decisions. This example illustrates that compromise, though tough, can result in practical and effective solutions.

It shows that a consensual approach, where everyone contributes to the final outcome, can lead to successful governance and policy implementation.

Compromise can only happen if you are crystal clear on your priorities. It’s less about watering down your values and more about a give-and-take process. Knowing your core principles allows you to negotiate effectively and make strategic concessions without losing sight of your goals.

Some politicians would have us believe that compromise is the same as compromission, equating it with betrayal or weakness.

READ MORE: 'Still time for Keir Starmer to see sense' and scrap two-child cap, say SNP

They thrive on clashes and confrontations, treating politics like a brutal sport.

This mindset undermines the collaborative efforts necessary for effective governance. They have an interest in keeping politics adversarial, which is toxic and only disenfranchises ordinary citizens.

Crucially, they’re stuck in the past and bury their head in the sand, refusing to see our new political reality. Let’s face it: the old political playbook, where big parties dominate the political landscape, is pretty much a thing of the past.

These large parties were not only able to appeal to a broad cross-section of society but also managed to offer comprehensive societal projects and handle internal debates effectively.

Today, though, the scene has changed dramatically.

We’re now dealing with a lot of smaller parties, each with their own niche but none really able to pull in more than 15 or 20 percent of the vote on their own. This fragmentation means there’s no single party dominating the conversation or holding the reins like before.

In this new world of politics, where no one party has a firm grip, it’s time for leaders to step up and adapt. The old “my way or the highway” approach doesn’t cut it anymore and just leaves people scratching their heads in frustration and disappointment.

To make things work in today’s fragmented political landscape, leaders have to embrace compromise and collaboration.

It’s about understanding where others are coming from and finding common ground. This isn’t just about being pragmatic—it’s a reflection of good democratic practice. If we want effective governance in this new era, we need to get comfortable with working together and making compromises.

Right now, it feels like some on the French left think we can afford to play political games and pass up the chance to actually govern. But let’s be clear – many people don’t have that luxury.

Families struggling to keep a roof over their heads, single parents bracing for the back-to-school expenses, and folks barely scraping by on minimum wage aren’t waiting for the perfect political scenario.

They need action now. If the left continues to bicker over compromises, these people are the ones who will pay the price. Compromise isn’t just a nice-to-have; it’s crucial for tackling the real problems people face every day.