PARIS — President Emmanuel Macron pulled off another stunning triumph but much of France's political class is not applauding.

Turnout was awful, opposition party leaders griped after the first round of the parliamentary election on Sunday. Macron is on course to win a huge majority but voters knew the system was so biased in his party's favor that they didn't bother to go to the polls, they said.

"This catastrophic abstention rate must make us question an election system that kept millions of compatriots away from the ballot boxes," National Front chief Marine Le Pen complained after the results were unveiled.

Some of the complaining was sour grapes. Le Pen's party is on course to win as few as two seats despite reaching the runoff in the presidential election little over a month ago. But in their broader critiques, the complainers had a point.

Turnout was indeed low, at just 48.7 percent. And France's constituency-based, two-round system for parliamentary elections does benefit the president's camp disproportionately. That's exactly what President Charles de Gaulle had in mind when he created the 5th Republic in 1958, aiming to strip parties of their power.

400 à 450 sièges pour En Marche! Kim-Jong Macron #legislatives2017 pic.twitter.com/dyTEoKkbqF — Kevin Bikoy (@kevinbikoy) June 11, 2017

The system brought stability, but also the risk of one-party rule. And that's what critics argue is happening now, with Macron's La République En Marche (LRM) party poised to win more than 400 seats in the 577-seat parliament, despite winning just 32 percent of vote.

Mocking Macron's supposed hegemony in parliament, some Twitter users already call him "Kim Jong Macron."

"There is a massive discrepancy between Macron's strength in parliament and the reality of En Marche's strength in the country," said Jean Garrigues, a historian who specializes in parliament. "It's going to be the biggest discrepancy in the history of the 5th Republic, which raises the question of whether important political groups are being seriously under-represented."

A dose of fairness

The solution, according to Garrigues and others, is to introduce a dose of proportional representation. And no one is better positioned to change the rules than Macron, who has the majority to push it through and supported the idea during his presidential campaign.

"There's no need to change the constitution to get this done," said Garrigues. "That's the beauty of his majority — he can pass this sort of law easily."

Defenders of the current system argue that going back to proportional representation, which exists in many EU countries, would be disastrous. The 4th Republic, which lasted from 1946 to 1958, saw governments and prime ministers come and go, often within the span of just a few months.

There was also the experience of 1986, when President François Mitterrand introduced proportional voting to save his Socialist Party from a rout, only to see the far-right National Front enter parliament in force with 35 MPs. (Conservative Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, tired of being harassed by Front MPs, killed the system off again the same year.)

Under that system, Macron's government would have 186 MPs, while the National Front would have more than 70 — enough to influence policy.

While both sides have valid points, the choice is not black and white. France could introduce a measure of proportionality to give parties more representation while stopping short of a shift to coalition politics.

An immediate benefit for Macron, if he went that way, would be to silence those who question his legitimacy to reform, as several party leaders did Sunday night.

Millions of their supporters, they argued, did not vote because they thought doing so would have no tangible effect.

But not being represented in parliament does not mean they will be any less opinionated about the country's affairs. They will merely express their resentment of government in other venues, namely in the street, with demonstrations. "If you evacuate any debate from the parliamentary space, you are moving it to the street, to demonstrations, to social media — to any space where people can voice their frustrations, in a way that is very hard to control," added Garrigues.

Head of steam

By ignoring or steamrolling over opposition, Macron could build resentment until voters get another chance to vent their outrage, at the next presidential election in 2022. Le Pen and radical leftist Jean-Luc Mélenchon would be well positioned to capitalize on anger by arguing that the president ignored their voters. And they would be partly correct.

By bringing them into the tent, Macron would make populist leaders less exciting. They would have to participate in day-to-day parliamentary activities, sit on committees and weigh in on policy. Their criticism would grow more pointed, less sensational.

France would have to accept that Le Pen would have more seats. But even if the Front had 50 or 70 MPs, a president with a strong party behind him would still be able to pass reforms without their support. And the experience of 1986 suggests that having the Front in parliament is not, in itself, a threat to democracy.

More Swedish, less fun

Another clear benefit is encouraging the spirit of compromise in a country where it's lacking.

Stripped of hegemonic powers, French leaders would have to train in the delicate art of Borgen-style consensus-building. Politics would get more boring, with far fewer histrionics from opposition groups that have no stake and nothing to lose.

Introducing a dose of proportionality would also chime with Macron's ideas for reforming the labor market. He wants union reps and company managers to strike work time and pay deals at the company level, instead of nationally. Doing so would represent a huge change in a country where unions tend to see worker-boss relations as a "rapport de force," or a conflictual situation that can only be settled by shows of strength.

What Macron wants for labor relations, he could apply to parliament as well.

France will never be a consensus-obsessed country like Sweden, and imitating its system is probably a bad idea. But taking a step in that direction might well fend off explosions of populist fervor down the line.

Macron has said he is ready to make changes. Equipped with his massive majority, all he needs to do is say what and when.