Filed under: Uncategorized
Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal will debate each other, live, for the first time in the campaign this Wednesday. Doubtless, each side will be honing its tactics; will Sarkozy take his usual approach of verbally steamrolling his opponent into submission? Will Royal employ the ‘rope a dope’ strategy and allow him to do so, hoping that the full range of nervous tics and contemptuous skunk eyes will prove his undoing?
Who knows? It will certainly be interesting to see whether the dynamic of the debate will differ on account of the fact that, for the first time, the contest is between a male and a female candidate. The occasion of the head-to-head has led the French National Archive to upload some of the previous French presidential debates to its site. They are extraordinarily macho, almost theatrical, affairs in which, unlike their staid and nauseatingly polite American counterparts, the two opponents eyeball each other across a desk.
My favourite clip so far (and, believe me, I’m working my way through all of them) features Jacques Chirac during his ill-fated attempt to unseat Francois Mitterrand in 1988. There was a post on this site a few days ago about whether France would ever restore its monarchy. Watching Mitterrand after seven years as President gives you about as good an indication as you’re ever going to get of what the roi de nos jours might look like. It also goes some way towards explaining the French public’s baffling attraction to Jacques Chirac. Even though he is a crook, you can’t help but have a sneaking admiration for his showmanship.
Michael P
Filed under: Euston Manifesto
From the Euston Manifesto team:
Humanitarian Intervention post-Iraq, Monday 30th April.
Jubilee Room, Westminster Hall, Houses of Parliament, London.
A Euston Manifesto Forum:
On Monday 30th April, a panel of leading Ministers, MPs, and thinkers will come together to discuss the future of humanitarian intervention, after the conflict in Iraq.
As a Euston Manifesto signatory blog, we would like to give your readership the opportunity to ask questions directly to the panel. We would really appreciate you and your readers’ contributions to this important debate, and would be grateful to you if you could raise awareness of the event, which we hope will raise nationally and internationally the importance of humanitarian intervention.
The speakers include: –
Rt. Hon. Hilary Benn MP, Minister for International Development and a candidate for the Labour party deputy leadership.
Prof. Brian Brivati, Professor of Contemporary History and Human Rights at Kingston University.
Nick Cohen, journalist for the Observer and New Statesman, and author of ‘What’s Left? How Liberals lost their way’.
Gary Kent, Director of Labour Friends of Iraq.
Pat McFadden MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Cabinet Office
Karen Pollock, Chief Executive of the Holocaust Educational Trust (tbc.)
You can post questions here or email them directly to euston.manifesto@googlemail.com.
In an interesting move, the first debate after the first round of the french presidential elections has not been between the two winners but between Royal and Bayrou. Bayrou finished third in the first round. I must say that when I read the headline last night on Le Figaro I just thought that I was so tired that my eyes were fooling me. And yet, after verifying this morning, I wasn’t mistaken.
Briefly then, we have two ideas roughly in conflict here. On the one hand, one wants to encourage dialogue and debate. On the other, one also wants to know when to leave the stage to leave the main players their turn. I must say that I heavily lean to the second way of looking at things. Roughly one–fifth of the voters voted for Bayrou in the first round. All of a sudden, this one–fifth holds more power than the very roughly equivalent voters that either voted to the left of Royal or the right of Sarkozy.
Another way of looking at things is that Bayrou’s position was one of a third way. As it turns out, the French didn’t think enough of centrism this time round. Still, one could say that the debate between Sarkozy and Royal would function in a way as an approach to the centre. And yet, with Bayrou staying in the swimming pool long after the other guests have left gives the impression that it’s not centrism which interests Bayrou as much as Bayrouism. From that perspective, I wonder if Bayrou will end up hurting or helping his chances in 2012.
Jonathan Smith
Filed under: Rhetoric
If there is a better example than mission statements of something that has a lot of words and yet ends up saying nothing I’d like to know what it is: perhaps the European Constitution? I had the opportunity this week to sit in on the creation of a mission statement, so if you are not familiar with its genesis here be an example.
1. Show examples of previous mission statements from other institutions.
2. Laugh outloud at the ridiculous language and run–on sentences.
3. Sit down in groups to work on your draft.
4. Look tentatively over one’s shoulder to the derided examples just “to see how they got started.”
5. Add a few more words here and there, and be sure to add “diversity”.
6. Chuckle self–consciously at the result but nod resignedly at the fact that this was the best one could do.
I could add a few steps here and there, but that’s the essential gist of it. If I had to hypothesize as to why these dandelions have taken to bloom so well, I’d wonder if there is any analogue to family crests and seals from another time. I’d bet good money that if one removed the mission statement from an institution and replaced it with one from another similar institution no one would notice the difference.
Jonathan Smith
Filed under: Music
One of the great classical musicians and minds of the 20th century has died. Like so many famous russians, including Dostoyevsky, he had multiple spellings of his name in english.
Filed under: French Politics
In a somewhat surreal interview, which is quickly becoming my new favourite word, Henri d’Orléans discussed not so subtly his own ambitions for political power in France. Have you not heard? He is the the roi putatif, the roi virtuel, of France. Yes, France keeps a running count of who would have been king until this day based on bloodlines.
Very unfortunately I have been unable to find this interview online although I’m sure in the weeks to come I should be able to find similar material to discuss some of his pretentions. Amongst other things in the interview, he mentioned how in a recent poll 17 percent of French citizens were in favour of the monarchy. In a more juicy quote, he discussed how the political power wouldn’t be prepared for a surge in the streets clamouring for the return of the monarchy.
As with most things in life I’m hopelessly ignorant about many of the relevant details of the subject. However, a couple of observations can be made all the same. In Britain the monarchy has been defanged, but in France it was dethroned. The manner in which it has been removed no doubt slightly encourages the idea of its return. As crazy as it sounds, and as impossible as it could be for a king to come to power in the United States or Canada, it really is not beyond reason to imagine France descending into monarchic rule in the decades to come if it doesn’t wake up.
Jonathan Smith
Addendum : I’d encourage any other writers and readers of this blog to challenge the last line of this post. And yet, personally, I just cannot will myself to see that possibility (of France descending into monarchy in the 21st century) as completely ridiculous anymore. I realise that that justification does not distinguish itself from those who believe that lasers took out the World Trade Towers, or indeed that Fascist America is on its way, as Naomi Wolf would believe. Still, I don’t think that we should hide away from our sentiments or intuitions either. What counts most, I think, is that we label them as such, and not as foregone conclusions.
As exclusively revealed/speculated upon/mentioned in passing yesterday, Francois Bayrou will reportedly announce tomorrow that he has chosen not to personally endorse either of the two candidates for the French presidency. For reasons of his own credibility, this was perhaps inevitable. He has attacked both parties’ positions as anachronistic and could hardly give whole-hearted support to one or the other, especially if he is perceived to have done a seedy backroom deal in order to secretly carve out a place for the UDF in any subsequent government. Bayrou will want his party, or whichever group that sprouts up after the choc of May 6th, to be an independent force within the National Assembly capable of achieving what he refers to as ‘a shift in the political landscape’. This way he is untainted by accusations of being anybody’s place-man. Nor, more pertinently, will he be required to back a winner in what could turn out to be a tighter race than anyone had imagined.
In the absence of any official encyclical from Bayrou, Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal will have to go above his head and tailor their message to the 7 million French people who voted for the man himself. Politically, this is much easier for Sarkozy; the UMP is a pragmatic coalition of centre-right groups naturally attracted to the economically liberal scent that the UDF gives off. However, the UDF is also a socially liberal party; one which has persistently attacked Sarkozy’s social programme for being too ‘brutal’. The harsh and intemperate language used by Sarkozy throughout the campaign will not be forgotten, no matter how hard he now tries to paint himself in pastel shades.
Pitched against someone who frightens the liberal horses so, one would assume that Segolene Royal’s appeal to UDF voters would be clair et net. Indeed, all her pronouncements since her rather lacklustre speech on Sunday have been designed to push the buttons of Bayrou and his supporters. Like him, she talks about ‘political renewal’ – although, this translation does not really do justice to the original phrase, ‘renovation politique‘, which suggests a rather more fundamental look at the architecture of the French system. Quite how Royal intends to square this rhetoric with what is a fairly conventional socialist programme remains to be seen.
However, any overtures made on her part to centrist voters immediately result in a chorus of harrumphs from her Socialist Party comrades. They balk at the thought of having to dilute their rhetoric, let alone their policies, for the sake of gaining the support of what they dismissively refer to as the troisieme force. For them, the PS is a rassemblement a gauche or it is nothing. The most vicious fight we see over the coming fortnight may therefore be within Royal’s own party – between leftist elephants like Dominique Strauss-Kahn and more pragmatic social-democrats like Bernard Kouchner.
And, funnily enough, the terms of the debate may centre around an ideology that will soon become something of an anachronism in its country of origin- le blairisme. This is a phrase that the leftist horses are equally fearful of, not just because of its post-Iraq connotations, but because it is seen as code for unthinkable doctrinal compromises- the sale of the party’s socialist soul and a capitulation to neo-liberalisme. Royal is not instantly dismissive of blairisme. In an interview with France Inter this morning she was quick to praise Blair ‘for investing in public services and cutting youth unemployment’. But this is rather disingenous. These achievements, based as they were upon a foundation of economic stability and growth, were only made possible by the liberal reforms of the 1980s, in particular, the unblocking of Britain’s sclerotic labour market (which, in the short term, lest we forget, iself led to a great deal of unemployment). Without a formula for resolving France’s structural problems, Royal’s talk of blairisme will continue to be all sizzle and no beef.
Michael P
Naomi Woolf has identified the ten steps that governments take when they wish to create and consolidate a fascist regime. Handy that it should be exactly ten, eh?
Oh, and did she mention that all ten of them are being actively pursued by the Bush Administration?
See how far you can get with the article. I got to point 3, where Woolf starts to talk about the ‘development of a thug caste‘:
OK.
Right.
I see.
Hmm….
‘Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers…‘
OK Naomi, I have to go now…to do…a thing.
Michael P
Filed under: Uncategorized
This needs little explanation.
Michael P
The first round result has delivered victories on a few fronts. First and foremost, it is a victory for Nicolas Sarkozy. His flirtation with the far-right has got him the outcome he desired- a slightly seedy one-night stand, enabling him to break the 30% mark (current estimates show him at 31.8%). His love rival, Jean-Marie Le Pen is left skulking in the corner with almost one million fewer votes. To pursue this rather unpleasant metaphor (it makes a change from military analogies, at least) Sarkozy, his lust now satisfied, must now distance himself somewhat – if not entirely – from his amour moche, whilst attempting to woo promiscuous Bayrou voters yearning for ‘autorité, autorité, autorité‘.
For all the disappointment they feel at their man’s 3rd place, they must know that they too have voted for a winner. He may not have achieved the result he needed to reach the second round (or to make the money I put on him look like anything other than a rash investment) but he is now in possession of a different and, arguably, equally valuable form of political capital. In 2002, Bayrou received some 6% or so of the vote – this has now trebled. The forthcoming legislative elections will probably show that the hunger for the UDF’s vaguely right of centre programme has not increased beyond 2002 levels, but the personal cult of Francois Bayrou, the third man who claims to be ‘above politics’, has certainly attracted a large following. Who will Bayrou now endorse? And, if he endorses, will his supporters follow?
His natural instinct would probably be to lean to the right, but given the polarizing nature of Sarkozy, and the overtures already made to him by some in the Socialist Party, he could equally swing behind a ‘reformist’ Royal ticket. Both candidates, though, will have to work hard to earn his support. One of the reasons Bayrou has done so well is because he has been able to cultivate the centre ground abandoned by the two main candidates. To win his endorsement, they will both have to show that they are willing to plough the same furrow.
However, given that Bayrou’s whole campaign was more or less founded upon the conviction that both parties are as bad as each other, it’s very hard to see how he could convincingly support either candidate. This leaves open the more intriguing possibility that he will refuse to make any pronouncement, maintaining what Le Monde today calls his ‘imperious stance’ above the party political fray. Unsullied by the subsequent misadventures of his anointed choice, he quietly prepares himself for another run in 2012…
If there is to be a race to the centre, Royal is yet to get off the starting blocks. Perhaps carried away by the rare opportunity to bask in the uncritical admiration of a socialist crowd, she spoke, as she has done throughout the campaign so far, squarely within, and not beyond, the confines of her own supporters. The battle to come would be between the familiar opposition of the powerful and the powerless; rich and poor. Seeing as her husband has previously labelled as riche anyone earning above 40,000 euros, this could turn out be a fight that she wishes she had never tried to pick.
In so far as it banished the memory of Jospin in 2002, yesterday’s vote was a victory of sorts for Royal too. Perhaps that speech was part of the catharsis that her party needed. But if it was a mere bone tossed in their direction, the militantsof the PS were not given too long to chew on it. Royal’s announcement, as she returned home in the early hours of this morning, that she ‘no longer belongs to the socialists’ will have to be her lodestar in the second round, for the hard numerical facts are as follows: she needs to find an extra 24% to become President, Sarkozy only needs another 20%.
Moreover, she can no longer draw on the left-wing reserves once enjoyed by Francois Mitterrand – the only precedent for president that French socialists have. In 1981, when Mitterrand scored more or less the same in the first round as Royal has done in 2007, 15% of the overall vote was garnered by the Communist Party’s candidate, George Marchais alone; en somme, almost one quarter of the electorate had voted to the left of Mitterrand, and could be expected to support him – as they did – in the run-off against Giscard d’Estaing. One of my favourite facts about French politics is that in 2002, some 33% of the electorate, on both the left and right, voted for totalitarian parties. This time round, it was a paltry 17% or so. Seeing as 10% of this vote went to Jean-Marie Le Pen, it can be said that the discerning totalitarian-about-town’s pick for the second round is probably Sarko. But Sego can lay claim to the rest- Arlette Laguiller of Workers Struggle, for one, has already given her endorsement. Even so, whereas Mitterrand had 25% of the electorate in the bag, Royal has somewhere near 10%. The second round simply cannot be won from the left.
Nor, however, can it be won from the hard right; somewhere Sarkozy has learnt to call home in recent months. He knows that his radical posturing, whilst achieving short-term results, may mean that in the second round an enormous number of voters will be voting against him, rather than for Royal. It would be all too easy for his opponent to run as the standard-bearer of an almost apolitical, republician ‘tout sauf Sarkozy’ mass movement; in fact, I would be shocked if the election did not now become ‘Sarko v. tout’.
Understandably therefore, there are signs that he is just as eager as Royal to look beyond his hardcore, towards the soft centre. In his celebratory address last night, Sarkozy used far less inflammatory language; no mention of the un-French practices of ‘polygamy’ or ‘goat sacrifices’ that had whipped erstwhile le-penistes into a frenzy during the first round. He took care to slip in the familiar rhetoric of ‘protection’ and ‘solidarity’ that is the opiate of the French electorate. But having set out his stall as the candidate of ‘rupture’, it’s hard to see how he can soften his image without dulling the blade of his reformist guillotine. Perhaps he will need to remind voters that a sharp, clean cut is the only way to avoid prolonging the nation’s suffering. For the moment, his tumbrel awaits.
Michael P
All The More Reason 