|
Sensitive Ségolène, or Robocop Sarko? James Debono analyses last week’s titanic clash between France’s two presidential candidates, which repositioned the political divide along the all-but forgotten fault line of “gauche” versus “droit”
In last Wednesday’s debate, France’s Socialist candidate Ségolène Royal finally proved beyond any doubt that she is made of Presidential stuff. But will that be enough to overtake Nicholas Sarkozy tonight? Probably not, for the pendulum of French society has swung firmly to the right: Sarko’s pool of votes is quite simply larger than Royal’s.
But her assertive performance in the two-hour long televised debate has nonetheless galvanised the left, and exorcised once and for all any remaining doubts on Royal’s stature.
In contrast to Royal, Sarko was simply not his real self in the debate. He behaved for all the world like a naughty schoolboy who was previously admonished for being rude. He surely kept his cool. He was even gallant towards the Madame Royal. Yet he did so by patronizing her.
“Madame Royal knows well that I respect her talent and competence and I’ve taken the time to tell her so, which caused me a few problems with my friends. I think that she’s not got to where she has by chance.”
Ségolène Royal responded to these compliments in a dignified way, refusing to express a personal judgment on her rival. “I abstain from personal judgments. I think first of all that political debate is a debate of ideas. From that point of view you are a partner in this democratic debate that we’re having right now. I think what’s important is the choice of society that we represent, the difference of values, the way we plan to exercise power.”
Mr Sarkozy’s aides had been worrying for days that he might lose his famous temper. They were particularly anxious that, if he did this, he would then be accused of misogyny. As it turned out, however, he managed to remain composed, albeit visibly straining to keep himself under control.
Dressed in an elegant black suit, Ségolène Royal was assertive and at times even aggressive. A key moment of the debate was Royal’s moral indignation when Sarkozy promised parents of disabled children that they would have a right to legal redress if their children were denied access to normal schools.
Commentators were divided on who scored most points from this part of the debate. Surely Sarkozy managed to keep his cool despite being called an immoral politician. He even succeeded in turning the tables by accusing Royal of being nervous – a charge more commonly levelled against himself.
But it also exposed Sarkozy, whose social credentials are already weak, to the charge of opportunism. Besides, the subject gave Royale a chance to expand on her own record as the French education minister who opened schools to the disabled in the first place. It also supplied her with a chance to expose the centre right government, of which Sarko formed a part, as the administration which drained schools of valuable resources needed to cater for the disabled.
“How dare Mr Sarkozy exploit the plight of disabled children for political purposes?” she asked, only for Mr Sarkozy to pounce on her indignation. This is what followed:
NS: Calm yourself, Madame.
SR: No, I will not calm down.
NS: You need to be calm to be President of the Republic... I don’t know why Mrs Royal, who is normally so calm, has lost her cool.
SR: I have not lost my cool, I am angry, sometimes it is right and healthy to be angry. The President of the Republic should be angry at injustice.
NS: You fly off the handle very easily…”
Tonight, Sarko might end up regretting this key moment of the debate. As Left-wing newspaper Liberation observed, “Nicolas Sarkozy did not lose… but Ségolène Royal won. She demonstrated what the public once doubted: that she is perfectly capable of being President of the Republic.”
And she made one powerful remark which struck a cord in the centenarian French republican tradition: “The President of the Republic should be angry at social injustices.”
By way of contrast, Sarko’s strong point remains his clarity of vision and the will to impose it. His vision is clear: a France which rewards hard work and authority. It’s a Robocop vision of society, which the rights always find so easy to explain but so difficult to implement.
Royal counters this vision of brutal power with a more conciliatory one based on social dialogue. But her thinking is at times muddled and harder to understand than Sarko’s simpler vision of life. Ségolène occasionally appeared vague to the extent that she seemed unable to answer some of Sarkozy’s questions, in particular about tax on stock market revenues.
While Sarko appears as the father who comes home after a day’s work to announce his decisions, Royal appears as the mother who comes home and calls for the children to discuss matters in a family re-union.
Apart from pitting two mutually exclusive conceptions of power, the debate was rich in ideological overtones. Despite the move towards the centre across Europe, the debate still pitted two value systems against each other. It still showed that left and right exist, and thank God for that.
The format of the debate itself, unlike many of the boring political discussions in Malta, was conducive to a real discussion. Candidates were allowed to interrupt each other. Rather than blocking the discussion, the time counter assigned to each candidate simply ticked on with each interruption.
The journalists were not prima donnas, but they did ensure that both Sarkozy and Royal addressed all the issues: including foreign affairs, something which had been neglected in both campaigns.
Two distinct concepts of society therefore emerged: two visions about work and wealth, with Ségolène speaking about the value of free time and the need to defend the quality of life, and Sarko emphasing the need for hard work by dismantling aspects of France’s protective social model.
Yet Ségolène reacted by exposing realities often forgotten by economists. Speaking on pension reform, Royal asked: “The life expectancy of a worker is seven years less than that of a professional. Seven years, do you understand? How can that be just in today’s France?”
Two different views of international relations also finally came across, with Sarko shutting the door on Turkey’s EU accession, and Ségolène calling for a pause, hinting that the door will be kept ajar for the democratic forces resisting Islamism.
Tonight, Sarko will have mathematics on his side. He will surely inherit most of Le Pen’s votes; he surely deserves them. He also needs half of Bayrou’s first round vote vote – a very probable feat considering the conservative background of a large chunk of Bayrou’s voters.
Surely he will not have the vote of the centrist Bayrou himself, who is now emulating Italy’s Romano Prodi by pioneering a centre left alliance in France through the creation of a Democratic Party.
Bayrou, who has been strongly critical of Mr Sarkozy, said in an interview with Le Monde newspaper following Wednesday’s debate: “I will not vote for Sarkozy.”
He added that the conservative candidate “could further rip France’s social fabric apart”, adding that he thought Ms Royal had “done rather well” in the debate. This was the closest Bayrou came to endorse Royal. It’s a clear message before forthcoming elections for the national assembly.
It might not be enough to help Ségolène Royal win. But by luring Bayrou to her side, Royal has galvanised the left again. Perhaps she will repeat the feat performed by Lionel Jospin’s, who, after losing the Presidential elections, went on to win the parliamentary elections to emerge as Prime Minister. Ultimately the French could opt for co-habitation between two models of society. |
