|
WHAT WILL THE NEW FRANCE BE LIKE?
EUGENIA OBICHKINA,
Professor of the Department of European and American Studies, MGIMO (University), Moscow
It is difficult to say what France will be like after the presidential elections, for it will depend both on the personality of the new president and on the whole nation, on the way the French perceive their president’s policy.
As for the second round of the presidential elections, we can try to make prognosis about the possible frontrunner but we cannot predict the results with 100% probability. So I’d rather focus on the peculiarities and results of the first round of the presidential elections.
The 2002 presidential elections were a watershed in the contemporary political life of France. The elections proved that political and especially electoral process in France had become more reminiscent of a “market”: voters came to the ballot-boxes as they would come to the super-market where they are offered products with all the same want-satisfying qualities.
During 1980-90s political forces in France were losing identity for neither of the parties could come forward with fresh solutions. The year of 2002 was the turning point. The first round was expected to be a routine with two centrist presidential wannabes having equal chances to make it into the runoff. It came as a shock that Jean-Mary Le Pen, the ultra right French politician, outscored socialist Lionel Jospin and contended with Jaques Chirac for the highest elected office in the second round.
Back then it was the French nation’s reaction to the absence of real choice and real political alternative. Later people admitted that the harsh reaction don’t become to the French society and voters.
As a result, the current elections show high mobilization. 85% of turnout is the highest ever. Only once has France witnessed such a result – in 1965 under De Gaul.
The 2007 elections have repeated the all-time record. But such a massive turnout is due to the shakeup of the 2002 elections. People came to the election precincts in order to block the ultra right. This is the strongest motivation of the French electorate.
In 2002 the level of absenteeism was really high – about 40%. Later at the European referendum the turnout was much higher. This upward trend has also contributed to the all-time record turnout.
But why was the level of protest vote high back in 2002 and is low now?
After 2002 it was the high level of protest vote that made the main candidates reconsider their programs and partially meet quite radical demands of both left and right electorate. Protest voters got the message: “we hear you”, “we understand that these are your needs and will try to consider them in political dimension”– and they liked it. So, instead of voting for minority candidates (which could be seen as a protest vote) they voted for the frontrunners.
As a result, electorate of minority parties, that formerly managed to score high in the first round, has diminished. National Front – a repository for protest voters – scored 19% in 2002, this year it gathered only 11%, which made significant electoral loss. The Communist Party didn’t lose that much, though its electorate, in any case, was not large. Back in 2002 it scored 3.37% vs. 2% in 2007.
In contrast, the radical left candidate, a Trotskyist, Olivier Besancenot has great perspectives. Former post office clerk Besancenot expresses hopes of ordinary people. In the first round of 2007 presidential elections he managed to improve his results – 4.25% in 2002 vs. 4.3% in 2007.
Arlette Laguiller, another Trotskyist candidate (from the Worker’s Struggle political party), has lost her electorate.
The Greens have also lost popular support.
Segolene Royale is both “social” and “ecology” spheres’ candidate. Her program pays much attention to ecology and she has done a lot in this sphere. She was in charge of environmental policy in Lionel Jospin’s cabinet. She is charge of a serious ecological program as president of the Poitou-Charantes regional council. Royale is a politician known for the “politics of little steps”.
Along with that Le Pen’s traditional campaign themes – the problem of assimilation of immigrants and personal security – have been adopted by Nicolas Sarkozy. Former Interior Minister Sarkozy has always concentrated his policy on immigration and security aspects.
So this time, Sarkozy managed to split the National Front’s electorate. The main consideration here is that an ultra right party was a thorn in the Fifth Republic’s side. So, as soon as the centrist Sarkozy adopted some of its slogans, popular support of the National Front went down. To an extent, this shift signals restoration of the people’s confidence. Seeking to express their protest, desperate voters were ready to carry the situation to extremes: to break the taboo on harsh radical declarations about human rights, religious equality, to undermine the routine political correctness that sometimes covered the policy of intimidation. By seizing the initiative, the country’s centrist political establishment managed to channel people’s aspirations into the framework of the republican discourse, which is a considerable achievement.
Trying to meet aspirations of the ultra right electorate, Sarkozy has proposed to introduce selective immigration and naturalization system, which cancels personal responsibility of an immigrant for his social integration. According to this principle the integration process and the practice of tolerance, which has always been ingrained in the French society, must be a bilateral effort of the government and immigrants. Sarkozy demands that immigrants should be charged with their own integration if they want to get French passports.
As Interior Minister Sarkozy has already implemented in practice this policy – last summer on the basis of selective principle only 20% of applicants were granted French citizenship. These numbers, among other factors, have influenced Le Pen’s electorate.
As to the runoff expectations, it should be noted that the central idea of the whole presidential campaign is renovation, retreat from the established political practice that lacks pluralism with both left and right forces sticking to liberal-technocrat line and political correctness that serves as a smokescreen to conceal acute social problems. The forthcoming contest Sarkozy – Royale expresses society’s wish to overcome the identity crisis. With these two frontrunners the second round will be a contest of two conceptions of the nation and state, two visions of the social organism, two value paradigms.
France has revived the fundamental left-right choice, confrontation of labor and capitalism.
What is the essential difference of these two systems?
Sarkozy talks about French identity implying its European and republican nature. His second message is strong state that integrates authority and power.
Sarkozy pays much attention to labor, to dignity that is earned with one’s merits, to capitalist’s moral duty, to social responsibility. His program envisages school reform that would encourage the most talented and ambitious students. This measure is intended to break cercle vicieux of over 20 years of educational reforms that have been gradually relieving students of any responsibility. To cure this social disease a positive discrimination principle is proposed, it is favoring not those who are poor and underprivileged, but those who despite social inequality have ambitions. To put it short, “Sarko” opts for labor and merits.
In his speech after the first round results had been announced Sarkozy promised to protect the people: “… To those who fear violence, poverty, future…, I promise protection”.
Royale, in her turn, tried to propose an alternative to paternalistic speech of her main rival. She was actively campaigning in the first round trying to accumulate feedback from the left electorate and managed use this information to advantage.
In her speech Royale assured the nation that they would have prosperous future and altogether, under her leadership they would reach this bright future, provided they would vote for her.
The two candidates have similar messages, but in the runoff it is differences in candidates’ programs that matter. Still, it will be easier for these candidates to reach consensus in the Parliament.
Speaking about Russia-French relations, I can say that it certainly was not the central issue of the home-oriented presidential campaign. Candidates turned to Russia only when discussing security issues. Sarkozy made impression of a Gaullist politician supporting Chirac in his denunciation of the war in Iraq. He also said that issue of relations with Russia and the U.S. must be considered in their connection. He said France is a steady ally of the United States and stressed that France wants to be seen as an equal partner of the U.S.
Another aspect is France’s reliant on imported hydrocarbons. During the last years France and Russia have concluded major contracts in this sphere. I don’t think that the interests of the large corporations and other energy consumers in France could be neglected by either of the presidential wannabes.
This text summarizes Eugenia Obichkina’s speech at the press-conference “What Will the New France Be Like?” held by the RIA Novosti information agency April 23.
April 27, 2007
|
