# Elections présidentielles en France



## Jocaste

*Hi !
Yesterday Nicolas Sarkozy has been elected "Président de la République Française" for five years. 
He's conservative and he won over the socialist candidate (Ségolène Royal) gaining 53% of the vote.
I wonder what , you, people who look this election from abroad, think about it.
Thanks in advance*


----------



## Dr. Quizá

This process has been quite observed from Spain. Despite the current government is pro-Royal and doesn't agree Sarkozy's immigration policy as a minister, it expects some changes in the latter and was supported by Sarkozy in one of the main themes of the France-Spain relationship (terrorism).

Let's see what happens now that the EU core is bent to the right.


----------



## Jocaste

What frightens me the most is the friend relationship that Mr. Sarkozy wants to create with the USA, especially about the war in Iraq.


----------



## The Scrivener

The BBC television news commented that Sarkozy was regarded by his supporters as a male Margaret Thatcher (whom the French apparently admired). They also stated that race relations would be a big issue, adding that France was at least a decade behind the UK in coming to terms with immigration.

It was a very close result, in my view. I just hope we don't see a return to the volatile political situation which, I seem to recall, was common in France many years ago.


----------



## AGATHA2

Ce que je trouve franchement inquiétant, c´est la position intransigeante en matière de politique sociale qu´on a pu voir de la part de M.Sarkozy. Peu importe l´opinion qu´on puisse avoir dans cette matière de toute facon personne ne pourrait qualifier M.Sarkozy d`élément d´équilibre ou de réconciliation !


----------



## cuchuflete

Jocaste said:


> *
> 
> I wonder what , you, people who look this election from abroad, think about it.
> Thanks in advance*



I am interested in politics worldwide, and followed the campaign with great interest.
I salute the French voters, for their high level of participation in both rounds of voting.
As often happens in my country, the choice seemed to be which candidate to vote against,
rather than which to vote for with enthusiasm.  

The best thing to happen in the election was the relatively small vote for Le Pen.  Most French
voters seem to have discarded him as irrelevant.


----------



## geve

cuchuflete said:


> The best thing to happen in the election was the relatively small vote for Le Pen. Most French
> voters seem to have discarded him as irrelevant.


Well there's another theory about that, but if I mentioned it I would be unfair to 53% of my fellow citizens. 


Jocaste said:


> *I wonder what , you, people who look this election from abroad, think about it.*


Today is a good day to have a look at this website  (you can select different regions/countries).


----------



## Setwale_Charm

I widely support these results. I would never hail another socialist government in Europe. I do not like everything about Sarkozy and I expect quite a bit of mistakes from him but, at least, this is going to be a President that really does smth regarding the current situation, esp. with the immigration issues.


----------



## AGATHA2

Setwale_Charm said:


> this is going to be a President that really does smth regarding the current situation, esp. with the immigration issues.


 
No doubt about that


----------



## Jocaste

Setwale_Charm said:


> this is going to be a President that really does smth regarding the current situation.



... even if people think he's wrong 
e.g. the European Constitution


----------



## jonquiliser

Setwale_Charm said:


> I do not like everything about Sarkozy and I expect quite a bit of mistakes from him but, at least, this is going to be a President that really does smth regarding the current situation, esp. with the immigration issues.


 
The problem is, I assume restrictions are higher on his agenda than improvements in processing applications in order to make immigration easier and smoother; let alone then to make substantial improvements for potential immigrants in policies and criteria concerning immigration... 

I can't say I didn't expect him to win, but I am disappointed nonetheless..


----------



## Jocaste

jonquiliser said:


> I can't say I didn't expect him to win, but I am disappointed nonetheless..



And so are a lot of French people


----------



## Setwale_Charm

jonquiliser said:


> The problem is, I assume restrictions are higher on his agenda than improvements in processing applications in order to make immigration easier and smoother; let alone then to make substantial improvements for potential immigrants in policies and criteria concerning immigration...
> 
> I can't say I didn't expect him to win, but I am disappointed nonetheless..


 

The last thing one wants for the poor Europe today is facilitation of immigration. As a demographer, I am not alone in considering mass immigration the most fatal step in the recent history, much more dangerous than any nuclear waste unattended.


----------



## Setwale_Charm

Jocaste said:


> ... even if people think he's wrong
> e.g. the European Constitution


 
Well, as I said, there will be minuses and mistakes


----------



## Outsider

Even though his victory was expected (and congratulations to Mme. Royal for getting so close!), I did not like to see M. Sarkozy win.

Geve made a light remark above with which I agree. I think Sarkozy won at least in part because he pandered to the most xenophobic feelings in French society. It's worrying when mainstream parties in Europe use such tactics to win elections, and succeed.

Having said this, I can't claim that I followed these elections very closely. I haven't paid much attention to TV news lately, and none to the printed media. The impression I got from what little I saw on TV was that the French elections were covered rather superficially. You just saw the candidates waiving to their audiences. Especially Ségolène Royal. I don't recall ever hearing her speak!

I did get the chance to watch an interview to Sarkozy, and one to François Bayrou. Bayrou seemed like the most interesting cadidate of the lot to me, but then I hope I've made clear how little I know of French politics.


----------



## Fernando

I sympathise with Sarcozy's victory. He has been a big friend of Spain to the moment. Ms Royal was another hollow politician. I admit that her vision from Spain is quite poor. We only see her in TV when Mr. Zapatero supported her (just another big success in foreign policy).

I am glad of Mr. Le Pen defeat (he had asked his voters not to vote in the second votation). Anyway he holds an appalling percentage.

The only topic I disagree is his French nationalism vision. 

On a side note, I am very disappointed of the reactions of some people to Sarcozy's victory. Burning cars is not exactly the right way to react to a democratic election.


----------



## LV4-26

On Sunday evening, a good many people were devastated. Not so much because Mrs Royal lost but because Mr Sarkozy won. And that's the new element in this election. This never happened before in France, at least to that extent : those who don't like the new president really don't like him at all.

People saw it coming. Even 2 years ago they started saying "that incredibly ambitious man could well become our next president. If it happens I'm leaving France". For those people, and they were many, it just could not happen, they didn't want it to happen. The very idea made them shiver.

This time, more than ever before, the president is *not* the "president of all the French".
I expect lots of problems to come because of that. Of course, I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## übermönch

Sarkozy promised "Judging _16-year olds_ like adults", creating a "ministry for immigration and _national identity_" and "Firing every second bureaucrat untill 2012", he largely relied on _right wing_ populism.  It is incredibly sad to have someone winning people's favour that way in today's europe.

Oh, yes, dealing with the consequences of our last elections we have no other option, but to look with deep compassion upon the people of France


----------



## karuna

I have mixed feelings, he has both good and bad points. On the other side I don't think he will be able to accomplish even half of what he promises, so I don't worry much about his conservative policy. On the whole it is likely that he may bring many beneficial changes for the EU.

As for immigration issues I am afraid that the things are more complicated that Mr Sarkozy describes. To say that immigrants do not want to learn French and want to keep their (undemocratic?) values is only one side. Other side is how much the society itself is open to immigrants and able to integrate them and not make them feel marginalised. That's why, in some countries large scale immigration works better than in others. I can't help but make parallels with recent riots by second generation immigrants in Estonia. And while I condemn this violence at the same time I can't imagine such thing happening in Latvia which has very similar situation (I know that in Estonian case Russian propoganda was partly to blame but still the failure to reach Russian speaking population, e.g., no local Russian press available was also a big factor). Of course, it is not that Sarkozy alone can change the French xenophobic mentality but still as a leader he has responsibility for showing good example instead of making threats, like "If you don't like the country, then  move out". But it was exactly these populistic slogans that guaranteed his victory.


----------



## Fernando

Mr. Sarkozy has won with a good advantage over his opponent. I think is one of the widest victories (except Chirac over Le Pen, for other reasons). 

In every election people disagree with the result. I do not like my current Prime Minister. So what? What is the big deal with Sarkozy? Do you mean Mitterand was loved by the right wingers?


----------



## viera

I think it's time for a dissenting view here. After all, Sarkozy beat Royal by a larger margin than any presidential candidate since De Gaulle, so some of us must have voted for him. Let me tell you why I did.

1. His agenda is a lot clearer and more honest than Ségolène's, particularly for the *economy*. He openly announced several actions he plans to take, many of which are necessary to put the economy back on track and especially the job situation, which has been dragging us down for over 15 years. By the way, he is not planning to "fire every second bureaucrat" (übermönch), but rather to replace only one out of two civil servants who retire, which is much less radical. Ségolène is very wishy-washy concerning the economy, speaking in vague generalities and making promises, which will lead to more and more spending. She's very committed to the welfare state and not too worried about our colossal debt. 25% of the government budget currently goes to paying interest on the debt ('down the drain' I call it).

2. Her agenda on getting *immigration* under control is about the same as Sarkozy's, except that she usually avoids the subject. During 'The Great Debate, on being pressed by Sarkozy, she had to admit that she too would 'régulariser' illegal immigrants already in France on a case by case basis. As a third generation immigrant himself, I feel that Sarkozy has a better intuitive understanding of and respect for immigrants.

3. I would have enjoyed having a *woman president*, but someone who knows what she is talking about (like Angela Merkel) rather than just being glamorous and smiling too much.

I don't feel in need of your compassion, but rather feel that this is an exciting time; I have great hopes for Sarkozy's term, that he will really do what he has promised, even though it is not popular with everyone. Maybe that is what worries so many oponents. French political observers have commented that this is the first election in decades where we voted *for *rather than *against* someone. And I am proud of our 85% turnout.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

viera said:


> [...]And I am proud of our 85% turnout.


I concur with this very last point.


----------



## cuchuflete

From a distance, I read many interviews with Royal supporters who stated that Sarkozy is/was extremely ambitious.  I heard the same from friends in France, whether they were supporters of any of his opponents.

I have yet to come across any candidate for high office in my own country who is not extremely ambitious.
I wonder if the Royal supporters would characterize her candidacy as lacking in ambition.

Successful politicians, some of whom turn out to be successful national leaders, typically have large egos
and strong ambitions, both for themselves and for those they would govern.  This is certainly true for those of all ideologies, in my opinion.

This is not an attempt to deny Mr. Sarkozy's purported ambitions—I have no direct knowledge about this, one way or the other—but a question: What does it matter?


----------



## geve

Fernando said:


> On a side note, I am very disappointed of the reactions of some people to Sarcozy's victory. Burning cars is not exactly the right way to react to a democratic election.


I agree with that - burning cars is NEVER a good option anyway.


Fernando said:


> In every election people disagree with the result. I do not like my current Prime Minister. So what? What is the big deal with Sarkozy? Do you mean Mitterand was loved by the right wingers?


Sarkozy's actions as Interior Minister got him a significant amount of people angry with him - a strong, virulent anger, that extended to authority figures in general - and this in my mind would have been a good enough reason not to vote for him.

I believe it is "less worse" to have a President that a part of the population looks down on, rather than a President that some people viscerally _hate_. 

Put that in relation with the shivering with fear mentioned by LV.


viera said:


> French political observers have commented that this is the first election in decades where we voted *for *rather than *against* someone.


Speaking for myself, and considering what I've said above, there was certainly a good part of 'against' in my vote.


----------



## LV4-26

cuchuflete said:


> This is not an attempt to deny Mr. Sarkozy's purported ambitions—I have no direct knowledge about this, one way or the other—but a question: What does it matter?


Being the one, I think, who used the phrase "incredibly ambitious", I think some clarification is needed on my part.
Two years ago, seeing how ambitious he was, people just knew he had excellent chances of becoming president, because he wanted it so much. I meant nothing more than that.

Ambition is shared by most political leaders. What's new in Sarkozy's case is that he's always *claimed* to nourish the highest expectations. A famous quote by him : when asked if it was true that when he was shaving himself in the morning, he imagined himself as President of the Republic, he answered "not only when I'm shaving".
I don't know how people would react abroad but, in France, Sarkozy's *naked* ambition was something new and surprising. I don't think we've ever had a political leader of his kind since Napoleon. 
One who will not hesitate to betray his own camp (first Chirac, then Balladur) to satisfy his ambition.

Having said that, I'm willing to acknowledge that this mixture of fear and hatred on the part of his opponents is slightly exaggerated. But that doesn't stop it from being real.

I also think the purpose of this thread is not to start again the French electoral campaign as some posts tend to do. I'm just trying to explain how and why we're confronted with a relatively new situation.


----------



## OlivierG

viera said:


> I think it's time for a dissenting view here. After all, Sarkozy beat Royal by a larger margin than any presidential candidate since De Gaulle, so some of us must have voted for him. Let me tell you why I did.


Some facts (at last):

May 2007
Nicolas Sarkozy  18,983,408 votes ; 53.03%
Ségolène Royal   16,790,611 votes ; 46.94%

*May 2002
Jacques Chirac 25,540,873 votes ; 82.21 %
Jean-Marie Le Pen 5,525,906 votes ; 17.79 % *

May 1995
Jacques Chirac 15,763,027 votes ; 52.64 %
Lionel Jospin 14,180 644,votes ; 47.36 % 

*May 1988
François Mitterrand 16,704,279 votes ; 54.02 %
Jacques Chirac 14,218,970 votes ; 45.98 % *

May 1981
François Mitterrand 15,708,262 votes ; 51.7 %
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing 14,642,306 votes ; 48.24 % 

May 1974
François Mitterrand 11,064,371 votes ; 49.19 %
Valéry Giscard d'Estaing 13,396,203 votes ; 50.81 %

*1969
G. Pompidou 12,971,604 votes ; 58.2 %
A.Power 7,943,118 votes ; 41.8 %*



> 1. His agenda is a lot clearer and more honest than Ségolène's, particularly for the *economy*. He openly announced several actions he plans to take, many of which are necessary to put the economy back on track and especially the job situation, which has been dragging us down for over 15 years.


We can agree about the problem, but not about the solution. We'll be able to call these actions "necessary" once they have proven that they work. I'm not absolutely sure that detaxing extra time, thus, incitating employers to keep they employees longer at work instead of hiring somebody else will create jobs.



> By the way, he is not planning to "fire every second bureaucrat" (übermönch), but rather to replace only one out of two civil servants who retire, which is much less radical.


It just takes a bit longer, but the result is the same, in the long term, isn't it? Do you consider that there are too many teachers, too much open gates at the post office, too many doctors in the public hospitals, enough magistrates to make justice go fast, enough soldiers and policemen? (I'm sure you don't  )
Some sources, in order to learn who are these state employees:
Quid
INSEE



> Ségolène is very wishy-washy concerning the economy, speaking in vague generalities and making promises, which will lead to more and more spending. She's very committed to the welfare state and not too worried about our colossal debt. 25% of the government budget currently goes to paying interest on the debt ('down the drain' I call it).


The debt interest for 2006 were 39 billion of euros, i.e. 14.6% of the government budget. Not to say it's not colossal, but just to provide some accuracy and real numbers.
Mr Sarkozy announced many precise numbers, and everybody seems to be satisfied with this. But, a few days before the last debate, he declared on Canal +: "There is no unemployed person in the USA" (authentic!). So, I don't know why, but since this I'm a bit doubtful when he gives these "precise numbers" about his planned actions to reduce the unemployment in France. 



> 2. Her agenda on getting *immigration* under control is about the same as Sarkozy's, except that she usually avoids the subject. During 'The Great Debate, on being pressed by Sarkozy, she had to admit that she too would 'régulariser' illegal immigrants already in France on a case by case basis. As a third generation immigrant himself, I feel that Sarkozy has a better intuitive understanding of and respect for immigrants.


Well, between regularizing all the illegal immigrants, and talking about "chosen immigration" (i.e. letting enter on the territory only people that match the need of the French companies in term of manpower), or about a "Ministry of Immigration and National Identity", there is a wide margin. 
Another point of view that his (and yours) by Patrick Weil, from the CNRS here. Just to make you hear another side of the story.
By the way, some "third-generation immigrants" voted for the extreme right wing at the first turn, so it seems not to be sufficient to get intuitive understanding and respect.



> 3. I would have enjoyed having a *woman president*, but someone who knows what she is talking about (like Angela Merkel) rather than just being glamorous and smiling too much.


I would have enjoyed too, and I don't care about how glamourous she is, nor the whiteness of her smile. I was interested by her ideas and her projects. Even if you consider it as too vague, I prefer vague humanism to ruthless ambition.



> I don't feel in need of your compassion, but rather feel that this is an exciting time; I have great hopes for Sarkozy's term, that he will really do what he has promised, even though it is not popular with everyone. Maybe that is what worries so many oponents. French political observers have commented that this is the first election in decades where we voted *for *rather than *against* someone. And I am proud of our 85% turnout.


I'm also proud of the turnout.
But did you try to calculate the amount of votes from the results of the first turn?
Imagining that all the extreme left and altermondialists voted for S. Royal, it would still require 60% of the Bayrou's votes in order to make the 47%.
The addition for Nicolas Sarkozy would then be:
N. Sarkozy (UMP): 31.18%
P. De Villiers: 2.23%
F. Nihous: 1.15%
40% of Bayrou: 7.43%

Total: 42%
10% are missing. Where did they come from?


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

From the OP:


			
				Jocaste said:
			
		

> I wonder what , you, people who look this election from abroad, think about it.


If not abroad, could we express our thoughts too?


----------



## Jocaste

KaRiNe_Fr said:


> From the OP:
> 
> If not abroad, could we express our thoughts too?



Sure, you're allowed to


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

Jocaste said:


> Sure, you're allowed to


 Merci Jocaste. 
My feelings are this election seems a good news for a lot of big countries and at least: UK (see the message of Tony to Nick on youtube, en français dans le texte !), Germany (Angela right wing), and USA (see hands shook between Georges and Nick "zi américane").
What about Hungary? Are they glad and proud of this election too (he is a grand son of a hungarian man)?
The whole world seems happy. Why are there still 47% of grumpy French people...?


----------



## Athaulf

cuchuflete said:


> From a distance, I read many interviews with Royal supporters who stated that Sarkozy is/was extremely ambitious.  I heard the same from friends in France, whether they were supporters of any of his opponents.
> 
> I have yet to come across any candidate for high office in my own country who is not extremely ambitious.
> I wonder if the Royal supporters would characterize her candidacy as lacking in ambition.
> 
> Successful politicians, some of whom turn out to be successful national leaders, typically have large egos
> and strong ambitions, both for themselves and for those they would govern.  This is certainly true for those of all ideologies, in my opinion.
> 
> This is not an attempt to deny Mr. Sarkozy's purported ambitions—I have no direct knowledge about this, one way or the other—but a question: What does it matter?




This is actually a very interesting piece of trivia, which in my opinion has its roots in some rather deep cultural differences between the English-speaking world and the continental Europe (which is unfortunately an issue too complex and off-topic to discuss here). Characterizing someone as "ambitious" is usually regarded as a positive comment in English-speaking countries, with connotations of hard-work, seriousness, and competence. However, in many continental European countries, the same word often has very negative connotations of dishonesty, disloyalty, immorality, and sometimes even criminality. I'm pretty sure France is not an exception in this regard. 

The contrast is especially evident in the case of the phrase "an ambitious young man." In English, you might easily use this expression as a cordial praise for someone, but in many continental languages, the literal translation of this phrase sounds very sinister, suggesting that this individual is bent on no good.


----------



## viera

OlivierG said:


> Some facts (at last):
> 
> About reducing the civil service:
> It just takes a bit longer, but the result is the same, in the long term, isn't it? Do you consider that there are too many teachers, too much open gates at the post office, too many doctors in the public hospitals, enough magistrates to make justice go fast, enough soldiers and policemen? (I'm sure you don't  )
> I suspect there may be too many teachers, since their numbers have not decreased as fast as the number of pupils. I have always heard that there are already more policemen per capita in France than in most other European countries. There are not too many counters at the post office, but too many post offices. A single counter in neighborhood shops (supermarket, pharmacy, tobacconist...) would render better service at a lower cost to the taxpayer. According to Sarkozy, the number of customs agents has not gone down in spite of disappearing borders. Also the Income Tax collectors need to be unified into a single department. Oh, you forgot to mention nurses in your standard list.
> 
> The debt interest for 2006 were 39 billion of euros, i.e. 14.6% of the government budget. Not to say it's not colossal, but just to provide some accuracy and real numbers.
> Mr Sarkozy announced many precise numbers, and everybody seems to be satisfied with this. But, a few days before the last debate, he declared on Canal +: "There is no unemployed person in the USA" (authentic!). So, I don't know why, but since this I'm a bit doubtful when he gives these "precise numbers" about his planned actions to reduce the unemployment in France.
> I would understand this to mean that there is virtually full employment in the USA, equivalent to 4-5% unemployment at a given time.
> 
> I would have enjoyed too, and I don't care about how glamourous she is, nor the whiteness of her smile. I was interested by her ideas and her projects. Even if you consider it as too vague, I prefer vague humanism to ruthless ambition.
> I would be very worried if France was run by an ambitious incompetent do-gooder; putting power into the hands of a 'vague humanist' strikes me as extremely dangerous.
> 
> I'm also proud of the turnout.
> But did you try to calculate the amount of votes from the results of the first turn?
> Imagining that all the extreme left and altermondialists voted for S. Royal, it would still require 60% of the Bayrou's votes in order to make the 47%.
> The addition for Nicolas Sarkozy would then be:
> N. Sarkozy (UMP): 31.18%
> P. De Villiers: 2.23%
> F. Nihous: 1.15%
> 40% of Bayrou: 7.43%
> 
> Total: 42%
> 10% are missing. Where did they come from?


Are you hinting that most of Le Pen's supporters voted for Sarkozy? It's a good thing that he brought them out of extremism back into the fold.


----------



## Amityville

Interesting article in the Guardian this morning here. , "Goodbye to la belle France". Elsewhere, Sego is demonised for 'vague humanism' by the right-wing and Sarko for 'empty rhetoric' by the left (or is that more in hope than expectation ?) but the commentaries do tend to be tinged with a view of France as somewhere to go for your holidays.


----------



## Jocaste

That's so disappointing  and scaring.
I hope people will change their mind for the legislative elections in about a month.


----------



## badgrammar

Thank you OlivierG for that very interesting post.  

The biggest problem with Sarkozy, in my mind, is that he implicitly represents the extreme-right.  If Le Pen lost votes in this election, it is because those votes went directly to Sarkozy - the RPR absorbed the extreme-right into its numbers. 

How did this happen?  You have to listen to the two politicians, Le Pen and Sarkozy speak.  Le Pen says it all, in no uncertain terms.  He does not mask his views on immigration and racism, he comes out and says it.  

So today, I'd have to say that _*Le Pen has more integrity than Sarkozy*_, because even though he is aware that voicing these opinions will always keep him on the fringe, he says what he thinks. 

Sarkozy, on the other hand, seems to hold the exact same opinions as Le Pen on immigration and nationalism (France for the French!)...  yet, he is a master-speaker, and knows how to say the same thing in a more acceptable manner.  He uses a very subtle rhetoric to express the opinions of France's xenophobic population without sending up the same "red flags" as Le Pen, who simply says what he thinks.

I never thought the day would come when I would be saying that Le Pen has more integrity than the President of the Republic.  Ouch!

I was very very disappointed to see Royal lose the elections.  Although her prowess at public speaking leaves something to be desired, I believe she would have done the country a great deal of good.  In 5 years I think she will have the experience and political savvy to win.  

France has always stood for three well-known values, none of which make me think of Sarkozy's agenda:  Liberté, égalité, fraternité. 

P.S.  On the bright side  , I am delighted, because now French people can no longer give me a hard time and judge America as a whole by the election of George Bush!  Yes, mes très chers....  You now have your very own George Bush!  Enjoy!


----------



## badgrammar

viera said:


> Are you hinting that most of Le Pen's supporters voted for Sarkozy? It's a good thing that he brought them out of extremism back into the fold.


He did not bring them out of extremism and into the fold - the fold now encompasses extreme right-wing values.  And you think that is a good thing? 



viera said:


> I suspect there may be too many teachers, since their numbers have not decreased as fast as the number of pupils. I have always heard that there are already more policemen per capita in France than in most other European countries. There are not too many counters at the post office, but too many post offices. A single counter in neighborhood shops (supermarket, pharmacy, tobacconist...) would render better service at a lower cost to the taxpayer.



Any information you can find regarding how the number of pupils has decreased while the number of teachers has remained the same would really, truly interest me. Respectfully, I do not believe that for a split second.  In our local schools, children are about 32 per class and per teacher, and the student body is doing anything but shrinking.  _Do you have any children in public schools? _

Too many post offices?  While it is true that the post office need not be so centralized, and having some services also available outside of their bureau is a great idea, have you seen the lines at the post office near you?  Here you can count atleast 15 minutes before getting to the front of the line to be served.  How can a high demand for service be better met by "a single counter in a local shop?".


----------



## badgrammar

cuchuflete said:


> I have yet to come across any candidate for high office in my own country who is not extremely ambitious.
> I wonder if the Royal supporters would characterize her candidacy as lacking in ambition.



You are quite right that ambition necessarily goes hand-in-hand with any attempt to be elected to such a high office.

My view is that Royal had the ambition - what she lacked was the experience.  Experience in government, experience in debating, experience in being in the forefront and solidly defending her positions. 

So while I am disappointed by the outcome of the elections, I firmly believe Royal will have learned a lot from the experience and will continue to hone her political skills over the next five years.  When the next elections come around (and perhaps the elections after that), she will be far better prepared.  She did have a kind of overly-naive quality that did not make her look like she was ready for the presidency, especially in the eyes of her opponents and undecided voters.  

So maybe she just wasn't "ripe" yet, and losing this time around was a blessing that will better prepare her for elections to come.


----------



## Jocaste

The article in the Guardian is very ... dark, but I think the same way 

"_If Sarkozy decides to take on the unions he will face strikes. If he takes on the farmers, he will be a fool. He won't do any of these things, partly because he was in the last administration. It's all just rhetoric, designed to make him as much of an international star as Bush or Blair. That's what Sarkozy really wants._"

And that's what scares my friends.


----------



## geve

Amityville said:


> Interesting article in the Guardian this morning here. , "Goodbye to la belle France". Elsewhere, Sego is demonised for 'vague humanism' by the right-wing and Sarko for 'empty rhetoric' by the left (or is that more in hope than expectation ?) but *the commentaries do tend to be tinged with a view of France as somewhere to go for your holidays.*


I concur with that! His description of "la belle France" looks like a nice fairy tale for the wealthy people.


----------



## FranParis

geve said:


> I concur with that! His description of "la belle France" looks like a nice fairy tale for the wealthy people.



And it isn't?


----------



## geve

FranParis said:


> And it isn't?


Speaking strictly for myself here, I must confess that I eat at my desk a lot more often than I have a 3-hour long lunch in a fancy restaurant, and I haven't had two month holidays since I left school... Maybe it's just that I am ahead of my time, and already part of the_ France qui travaille_ that our dear President dreams about. 

Maybe you think we shouldn't debunk this stereotype for it might harm the image of France's _douceur de vivre_, hence tourism?


----------



## FranParis

Geve, I'm just joking.

But, in your own words France looks like a nice fairy tale for *wealthy* people, which I believe it is. Let's not talk about  *the other* people, to whom the fairy tale is not the same...


----------



## Athaulf

Jocaste said:


> The article in the Guardian is very ... dark, but I think the same way
> 
> "_If Sarkozy decides to take on the unions he will face strikes. If he takes on the farmers, he will be a fool. He won't do any of these things, partly because he was in the last administration. It's all just rhetoric, designed to make him as much of an international star as Bush or Blair. That's what Sarkozy really wants._"
> 
> And that's what scares my friends.




I don't really seen anything scary or dark in the above quote. It basically states a truism that any politician who tries to meddle with the _status quo_ too much will face a strong, often unbeatable opposition. The idea that Sarkozy will try implementing some scary radical ideas, or even any sort of significant reform, is just as fantastic and naive as the idea that Royal would be doing the same things in the other direction. And viewing Sarkozy as some sort of an extremist because he supposedly caters to the Le Pen-type extremists is also as naive as viewing Royal as some sort of a crazy radical socialist because some such people, angered by her defeat, were engaging in hooliganism while brandishing communist flags a few days ago.

In my opinion, the differences between the main candidates in these elections are being strongly overplayed, which is however a common phenomenon in modern politics. In any stable political system, the platforms of all mainstream politicians will converge to whatever they believe to be the preferences of the median voters. The rest mostly consists of empty rhetoric aimed at fooling some of the more extreme parts of the electorate and the attempts to smear the opposition using the standard techniques of guilt by association.


----------



## TRG

The observation by some that those who voted against Sarkozy do so with an intense emotional dislike for him is quite reminiscent of American politics and describes how many people feel about the current president.  Someone has even invented a name for this feeling; Bush derangement syndrome or BDS.  I find it unsettling and my hope is that in our next national election this emotion finds a way to exhaust itself.  I also hope that the people of France do not have to suffer with this for the next five years... but what am I thinking?  It's politics!


----------



## FranParis

Well, I' suffering already from SDS..


----------



## Jocaste

Athaulf said:


> I don't really seen anything scary or dark in the above quote.


I quoted the wrong sentence 
The right sentence (I no more know where it's from in the Guardian ^^) talked about the Sarkozy-Bush relationship and its future.
I can't believe most of the French people want to involve in the war against Iraq.
THIS is scared for me : war is not a solution and Sarkozy has clamed these last few months that he has supported Bush in his plan.
There are other ways to help population and countries who need help.
I think about Iran also : if Sarkozy is for the war in Iraq, would he be for a war in Iran ?


----------



## Musical Chairs

*France has given me everything, and now it is my turn to give back  to France what France has given me.

*I read this in the BBC, and it reminded me of JFK's speech that went "ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." I guess I noticed the chiastic structure. Oh well, just a comment...I wonder if this sort of thing is common in speeches all over the world.


----------



## Outsider

Since some readers may not be familiar with the concept, allow me: What is chiasmus?


----------



## geve

TRG said:


> The observation by some that those who voted against Sarkozy do so with an intense emotional dislike for him is quite reminiscent of American politics and describes how many people feel about the current president. Someone has even invented a name for this feeling; Bush derangement syndrome or BDS.


 
"And whom do the French elect? Why, none other than George W. Bush himself."​ 
said the New York Sun.


----------



## balibamba

Hi !

Personally, I would prefer the election of ségolène royal or above all françois bayrou
nicolas sarkozy represents a political party whom I disapprove the dogmas and ideas so I hope that the next month, a contre-pouvoir (I don't know how what's the word in english lol) will be elected in the legislatives!

and you what do you think about this election ???

ps however I don't think sarkozy is so dangerous as it is said by newspapers and some french!


----------



## badgrammar

I am an American, and am well aware of how any system called "socialist" or "communist" is looked at like some relic from the past.  The French political system is composed of a diverse number of political schools of thought.  I am thankful for that.  I am thankful for universal medical care.  I am thankful for a system that, atleast in the past, has put people before the numbers.  

This election showed us that people are ready for a change.  I don't think this is the right change, however, as France deserves better than xenophobia and a corporate outlook on society.


----------



## Jocaste

Imperialista_Yanqui said:


> How envious I am of France that they finally have a real conservative at the helm.



I am really not proud of this : conservatism can't be conjugated with advancement, real advancement. Ok, that's not the same thing but look at the Pope (THE picture of conservatism by excellence): he's against condoms, against sex actually, against every birth control ways. In today's world, this is ridiculous.
And some of Sarkozy's ideas are alike. I mean not appropriated with our society.


----------



## meltem

In Turkey, the election of Sarkozy to the presidency was not welcomed since he's totally against the membership of Turkey to the EU, and also he's seen as being against the muslims living in France.


----------



## Nanon

Wasn't Sarkozy's cruise off Malta a Bushism?!
Sarkozy's first gesture as elected president was to go on holidays. Well, he has the right to take a couple of days off, because as of May 16, when he takes over from Chirac, he certainly won't have any spare time. I have nothing against that.
But, but, but... when you make a seductive campaign and you promise to workers and middle-class people that they will _"work more to earn more"_, should you celebrate your victory in a luxury restaurant and stay only 15 minutes with the crowd, as he did? Should you then choose to go on a luxury cruise? 
OK, Sarkozy was a guest of the yacht owner and he claims his holidays did not cost anything to the state. Agreed. But the impact on the opinion was so bad that Sarkozy had to abridge his holidays.
These first moves certainly do not make me proud of a president whom I have to call "mine"   because I respect democracy. In my opinion, they clearly demonstrate that Sarkozy's promises were pure, empty rhetorics. Not that Ségolène Royal did not use empty rhetorics - but maybe, maybe, on the long term, such a sharp contrast between words and behaviour may make some Sarkozy voters think twice...


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

Nanon said:


> [...] Sarkozy's first gesture as elected president was to go on holidays. [...]


Nanon, I think you didn't understood his gesture. He said that his purpose was to "inhabit the presidential function". Some would have go to a retirement with monks to reach this aim, others prefer cruising in a yacht. 
BTW, polls show it doesn't shock that much French people... How about foreigners?


----------



## badgrammar

Maybe it would be somewhat more shocking if people realized that the person who offered him the vacation aboard the fabulous yacht is a billionaire investor named Vincent Bolloré.  

The whole yacht story makes me uncomfortable because new presidents probably should avoid accepting gifts, perks, and million-dallar vacations from wealthy, influential industry heads, it really looks bad... and in very poor taste so soon after the elections.


----------



## faranji

The worst part of the whole vacation story was that it wasn't a 'fabulous yacht' at all but, at least to my sored eye, a converted trawler with a disgusting-looking, plonked-on double deck. A telltale parvenu hash as naff as it could get.


----------



## Nanon

KaRiNe_Fr said:


> Nanon, I think you didn't understood his gesture. He said that his purpose was to "inhabit the presidential function". Some would have go to a retirement with monks to reach this aim, others prefer cruising in a yacht.


I'm afraid I did understand... Again, mere rhetorics IMHO. He says he wants to inhabit the presidential function, and a couple of days after he changes his version and says he finally managed to accept Bolloré's invitation, after having postponed it during several years because he didn't have time.
By the way, I am travelling abroad these days and when I comment about this, people are shocked somehow. Of course, my way of telling the story may have an influence but not only.


----------



## Imperialista_Yanqui

Jocaste said:


> *I wonder what , you, people who look this election from abroad, think about it.*


 
I am very pleased. I view it as the French repudiating a failed ideology. I hope that other EU countries will follow France's lead into the future.


----------



## cuchuflete

Imperialista_Yanqui said:


> I am very pleased. I view it as the French repudiating a failed ideology.


The ideology Sarkozy is replacing is that of President Chirac:


> His internal policies included lower tax rates, the removal of price controls, strong punishment for crime and terrorism; and business privatization...


Repudiation?   

Scrambled facts?

Wishful thinking?

In whose government has M. Sarkozy been a minister?   I don't think it was F. Mitterrand.


----------



## Imperialista_Yanqui

Perhaps it is a repudiation of a policy of appeasement for the "racaille".


----------



## geve

Imperialista_Yanqui said:


> Perhaps it is a repudiation of a policy of appeasement for the "racaille".


Do you know who was Interior Minister for the last two years, hence in charge of public order and security?


----------



## Imperialista_Yanqui

To bring this back to topic, I view this election as a mandate to deal strongly with those elements that would harm the Fench public.


----------



## ireney

Moderator's note: This thread has for a long time wandered down paths that outside the scope of this forum and is therefore closed.


----------

