A Refusal That Reshuffles the Cards

In Montpellier, the 2026 municipal campaign is beginning to reveal its fault lines. Jean-Louis Roumégas, a prominent figure among the Ecologists, has publicly rejected Nathalie Oziol's (La France insoumise) proposal to engage in a common dynamic for the upcoming municipal elections.

This refusal, reported by the local press, materialized in a written response in which Jean-Louis Roumégas criticized the method employed by the "insoumise" deputy, deeming it "curious to reach out through intermediaries." He stated that he remains reachable "by phone or email," but rejected the idea of a political construction process initiated publicly without prior discussions between leaders.

Beyond the form, this stance confirms the desire of Montpellier's ecologists to maintain, at this stage, an autonomous strategy, at the risk of once again fragmenting the political space on the left.

The Context of Nathalie Oziol's Proposal

Nathalie Oziol's approach was part of a specific political sequence. In an open letter, she called for the formation of a common list between La France insoumise and Les Écologistes, in the name of social, ecological, and democratic urgency, and in the face of a socialist municipal majority that she considers aligned with Macronism.

She notably relied on programmatic elements she believes are shared — opposition to certain security policies, defense of public freedoms, international positions on respect for international law — but also on a recent poll placing the outgoing mayor significantly ahead, far in front of dispersed candidacies on the left.

In this context, the call for unity was as much strategic as political.

Fundamental Divergences Highlighted

In his response, Jean-Louis Roumégas does not limit himself to criticizing the method. He also highlights political disagreements, notably citing the issue of plastic waste incineration. He particularly targets the role of local "insoumis" officials favorable to an incinerator project, which he considers incompatible with a demanding ecology.

This reminder allows Roumégas to assert an ecologist line that he wishes to be distinct, both from the current municipal majority and from the compromises he attributes to other left-wing forces.

The 2020 Precedent: A Still Relevant Lesson

This refusal revives the memory of the 2020 municipal elections in Montpellier. That year, three distinct lists originating from or close to EELV ran in the first round. Jean-Louis Roumégas, after losing the internal primary of the ecologists, led one of these lists.

The result: none crossed the 10% threshold, preventing any autonomous ecologist presence in the second round and contributing to the lasting weakening of this political current in the city.

Five years later, the repetition of a dispersion strategy raises questions about the ecologists' ability to learn from this failure.

A Political Question, Not Just Tactical

The disagreement between Jean-Louis Roumégas and Nathalie Oziol goes beyond simple electoral arithmetic. It raises a central question: how to build a local majority capable of truly making an impact against a solidly established municipal bloc?

In a two-round election, the dispersion of lists can prove decisive. The argument of political identity or ideological coherence then clashes with a well-known reality of municipal elections: without collective momentum, even closely aligned forces can disappear from the second round.

Ego in Politics: Lose Alone or Win Together?

This episode illustrates a recurring problem in local elections: the weight of personal strategies and egos. Being a lead candidate, embodying a project, appearing as the credible alternative are strong symbolic stakes. But they can lead to paradoxical choices: preferring to lose as a solitary leader rather than building a collective victory where roles would be shared.

In Montpellier, recent history shows that this logic has already produced negative effects. In 2020, the multiplication of lists from the same political space did not strengthen democratic debate; it primarily weakened the ecologist and left-wing forces against more disciplined blocs.

What This Refusal Reveals

The rejection of Nathalie Oziol's proposal by Jean-Louis Roumégas goes beyond a simple circumstantial disagreement. It reveals the persistent difficulties of the left and ecology in Montpellier to overcome internal rivalries, despite a political and climatic context that would make strategic unity particularly crucial.

As 2026 approaches, one question remains open: will the ecologist and left-wing forces choose to unite to make an impact, or will they continue to divide at the risk of being eliminated from the second round? Montpellier's recent electoral history shows that this decision is never neutral.