May 3, 2007
France’s great debate
It’s past midnight in Paris and I’ve just finished watching the great debate - the long-awaited face-off between Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal.
My verdict? Bizarrely boring; bizarrely parochial - and probably a narrow victory for Sarkozy.
I know France is a serious country - but letting the debate run for two and a half hours seemed to be a bit of a punishment for even the most serious-minded of citizens. Worse, despite the acres of time available to them, they barely discussed some of the most serious issues facing France. There was no discussion - and I mean none - of the fact that in 2005 France faced over three weeks of nightly riots. You might have thought that rated a mention. And in 150 minutes of debate, they spent barely 15 minutes discussing the outside world.
Instead, the two candidates got lost in the finer details of social and economic policy. I know that France faces serious economic problems. And they had a good and fairly clear discussion of the economics of the 35-hour-week. (I thought Sarkozy scored heavily there - but then I agree with him that it’s a mad law) But was it really necessary to spend quite so much time on issues like civil-service reform, nuclear power and the school curriculum - while barely discussing the social problems of France’s suburbs, or the collapse of France’s European policy?
It was Ségolène who came into the debate behind in the polls - so a dull and inconclusive debate was bad news for her. Her best hope was to foster the widespread suspicion that Sarko is a bit of a maniac - and a dangerous and brutal right-winger. She needed him to lose his temper, to rant a bit, to condescend to her. But, of course, Sarkozy knew that was the game plan - and was ultra-careful not to fall into the trap. The one moment when she seemed to rile him was when she accused him of lacking credibility. His irritation was plain and slightly comic. But he managed to pull himself together.
In fact in the end, it was Ségolène who came closest to losing it. She became so emotional and angry in an argument over the education of handicapped-children that Sarko was able to tell her to "calm down". As one of my female colleagues put it - "There is no phrase better calculated to infuriate a woman." And indeed Ségolène did look absolutely livid. This gave Sarkozy the chance to tell her that as president of France, she would have to be able to keep her cool - which was exactly the lecture that Ségolène must have been hoping to be able to give to the famously volatile Sarko.
Overall, I think it has to be a win for Sarkozy. He sounded calm and knowledgeable. His opponent was pretty dull - and so was the debate. With just four days to go before polling day that has to be good news for the front-runner. But that’s just my verdict. I’ll be interested to see if the opinion polls and tomorrow’s newspapers bear it out.
Hello,
Posted by: Elie Hay | May 3rd, 2007 at 2:18 pm | Report this commentI, today, wanted to have a look on how you people could perceive the elections going on there. And what a surprise to see how the information is changed. I beleive we haven’t seem the same debate. In the debate i’ve seen, they were Segolène Royal leeding severely her adversair on subject he didn’t wait for like security (the suburbs) and economy, were she showed her propositions were more coherent than sarkosy. Despite all, she showed yesterday she is and will be strong and direct on all important subject like Iran, or Darfour. She showed clarity and clarity and sincerity and clearly won this debate.
I thought this newspaper was pretty serious one, i’ve changed my mind.
It’s with this kind of disinformation that think like war in Irak can happen.
Cheers
Elie Hay
Hello,
As a French national, it was part of my duties to watch the televised debate last night. I did it on the internet from London as I live here.
I must admit I mostly agree with FT. Sarko has probably won the debate, just by staying calm and knowledgeable. For me Royal seemed over excited, too eager to show that she read the books and remembered the figures, but apart from that she does not seem to be able to think properly.
If Madame Royal is elected, France will go back to the dark ages of socialism and conservatism. This is definately not the image of the future. This model has shown that it does not work in a global world and the only way that people in the world will look at the “miracle francais” is with laughter.
If Sarkosy is elected, he might not be the top guy that everyone would like, but he’s a doer, he has convictions and a good track record as a minister of the government. I trust him more than Royal to make some well needed deep changes in the society.
Posted by: Valentin Danner | May 3rd, 2007 at 2:35 pm | Report this commentI saw the debat in Paris and I share the same opinion with racheman. Plus, don’t criticize a newspaper because it doesn’t has the same point of view as you. Just don’t act like Ségolène, pls.
Posted by: echo | May 3rd, 2007 at 2:44 pm | Report this commentBoring and aggressive. While Mme Royal uttered negative and pretty aggressive comments on whatever the debate could go about, M. Sarkozy answered back, repeating the rehearsed programme that has been made public over the past months in France, looking mildly upset with the unleashed banshee facing him. Luckily, there were other programmes to switch to !
Posted by: ClaireC | May 3rd, 2007 at 4:09 pm | Report this commentMy memories of the titanic debates between Mitterrand and Giscard in 1974 and 1981, or between Mitterrand and Chirac in 1988, had me quite excited about the prospect of this one. What a let down. Sarkozy certainly argued his case better and stuck to the question. Neither had a clue about the place of nuclear power in France (17% Mme Royal? Really! 50% M. Sarkozy? Oh dear). But after an hour and a half I was falling asleep. Sarkozy was bending backwards to be polite to his opponent, whose twin tactics were to try to rile him and to veer off into unending non-sequiturs.
Posted by: Rupert Swyer | May 3rd, 2007 at 4:15 pm | Report this commentThe overall tone of this election has been one of the most unpleasant I have seen since arriving in France in 1969. I have been deluged with messages from friends and strangers painting Sarkozy as an ultra rightwing lunatic who has the press in his pocket (Libération, owned by a friend of his, is running a strident anti-Sarko campaign: explain that one, please). Friends with “left-leaning” friends in high places insist Sarkozy is “not a democrat” (meaning, please?); others that he is a vicious racist (his policy on expelling illegal immigrants is almost the same, word for word, as Mme Royal’s). The attacks on him are largely an insult to the intelligence.
I have two adopted children of North African origin; my daughter lives with a Frenchman of Nigerian origin. We are the original “black-blanc-beur” family. My children say they will vote Ségolène while realising Sarkozy is by no means the racist people claim. My wife and I will be voting Sarkozy after a lifetime of voting for the left. Despite his many shortcomings, at least he makes sense when he speaks.
Royal showed in a number of instances she didn’t understand basic principles of government. Her lack of understanding of French ‘Finances Publiques’ (finance laws) is scary. She tried to make up her lack of knowledge with a condescending and moralistic tone, attitude she has borrowed from Mitterrand. She is trying to be as much of a ‘mother’ as Mitterrand was trying to be an ‘uncle’ (Tonton) to the French populace. In a number of instances, when asked to be specific in her answers, she could only mutter that “these things will have to be negotiated with the ‘partenaires sociaux’” (i.e. unions). The French socialists’ cure all solution is more government and more taxes. On the other hand, Sarkozy was taking notes, and replied factually and politely. He was trying to provide specific answers about his program. Enough socialism!!! France needs to get back to work, and give up on many of the benefits that were previously given out by demagogue governments (from the left and the right).
Posted by: French Expat | May 3rd, 2007 at 5:05 pm | Report this comment“She showed clarity and clarity and sincerity and clearly won this debate.” dixit Elie Hay.
lol Elie, obviously intellectual honesty and discernment isn’t your thing…
Posted by: ahah | May 3rd, 2007 at 5:25 pm | Report this commentI strangely agree with a FT article since years, Sarkozy won by a good margin and Royal doesn’t have convinced anybody excepting those -few- who were already, a huge part of her voters being made of people who want to vote against Sarkozy.
For those who saw the french debate yesterday - I am not talking about those who saw or read comments about it - There is absolutely no doubt!
Segolene Royal has simply and purely crushed Nicolas Sarkozy.
Why?
– Nicolas Sarkozy did not understand he is running for presidential election and not for the post of prime minister. He always went to details, and never gave his view on global and international matter. This make sense since he is pro-Bush while French are 99% anti-Bush.
– He has serious lack in contradictory debate. While Segolene Royal had to come through primary election in her own party and fight against “Elephants”, Nicolas Sarkozy made his campaign through fake-debate, pre-arranged TV shows, where he always was on a no-threat position. One obvious sign of his lack of serenity - despite his pseudo-calm - was the fact he could not stand to look at Segolene Royal during the whole debate. He was always looking at the journalist like a little kid looking for help.
– Nicolas Sarkozy adapted a pseudo-aggressive stance during his campaign. He aimed to win vote from the Neo-Nazi party, which he did very well. But he realized only recently that he has to be the President of all the French. His Pseudo-calm attitude looked totally fake because we saw him during the last 6 months running after colored-skin people, insulting public-services.
– Segolene Royal knew that Sarkozy was trying to stretch his position and she made it obvious on the animated discussion on handicapped-children. She made it clear that you can not trust somebody whose first reaction on a father - who just lost his family burned alive in Paris - is to ask his identity paper. How can a guy like this care seriously on handicapped-children?
I personally don’t know who is going to win the election. But there is absolutely no doubt on who won the debate: Segolene Royal!
Posted by: Frenchman | May 3rd, 2007 at 5:44 pm | Report this commentCompletely disagree, Segolene thrashed him.
Posted by: unfrench | May 3rd, 2007 at 5:57 pm | Report this commentThe reason why they didn’t discuss much world politics is they are trying to get votes from French people, not from foreigners: the outside world doesn’t vote on French elections, French people do.
Maybe if they had invaded another country they would discuss it, which reminds me, how come this newspaper rarely covers the Iraq bloodbath?
It’s really funny to see FT readers angry at 35 hours working weeks, LOL!
Are you jealous maybe?
Please don’t stop working hard, it’s the only thing you have in your life, what else can you do?
To Frenchman…
I initially thought you had not watched the debate, because the arguments you provide are as empty as Royal’s promises. You do not bring forward arguments related to the debate itself. Then I realized you must be a card-holding PS member, and as a result, you will always find Royal to be the winner.
Regardless of my personal opinion. The debate showed that Royal wants more government, more taxes. She doesn’t want to question previously granted social benefits, which France can no longer afford. She thinks that Government’s intervention can solve France’s deep crisis: unemployment, crime rate, etc. (Only a French socialist or communist can still believe that!!!)
On the other hand, Sarkozy wants to reduce taxes, favor individual entrepreneurship, adopt immigration rules comparable to those adopted by other countries (USA, UK, etc.)…
Do we want more “socialism a la Francaise”? My personal preference is “No”.
Posted by: French Expat | May 3rd, 2007 at 6:10 pm | Report this commentOf course Mr. Sarkozy won the debate last night. Ms. Royal surely beat expectations, at least mine.
However, what I find to be a quite chilling prospect, is that somehow the French electorate will surprise us all and vote Madame Royal into office on Sunday.
If this happens, France will end up like Argentina!
Posted by: Mark Pendell | May 3rd, 2007 at 6:17 pm | Report this commentI think it was really 50-50. Yet, I think that must be a victory for Sego, as the whole of France expected her to either be made to look incompetent or that she’d have to act out her favourite “victim part” to be able to cope with Sarko’s debating skills. And in fact, she was assertive, strong, on the verge of anger at one point, which would be a big minus for Sarko, but i think for her it’s a big plus - she needed to appear strong willed, able to cope under pressure and attacks etc… And I think she did it for the most party. Of course, I still don’t get her points. Mostly that’s because she doesn’t have any - a commentator in the French media argued it was because “she expresses herself using complex associations of ideas which makes her come across as confuse” - nonsense!! - she was just babbling away trying to look “presidentiable” and not caring to be concise and to the point.
Another reason why a draw was probably a victory for Sego, is that there were expectations that this debate could end her hopes of winning - it hasn’t as the polls haven’t budged. Basically, it’s looking like they was no debate at all.
But I, for one, have made my decision. I had decided to give myself until the debate so that why I think, personally, Sarko edged it - not because he convinced me, but because Sego convinced me than she must not win.
Posted by: French_in_London | May 3rd, 2007 at 6:52 pm | Report this commentA little personal protest: if you have a view, please state under your name. We are not living in Stalinist Russia or Nazi Germany, nor even Huist China. In a proper democracy you say what you think and who you are. Not to do so is to undermine democracy.
Posted by: Rupert Swyer | May 3rd, 2007 at 9:18 pm | Report this commentCOME ON SARKO COME ON SARKO COME ON SARKO only nicolas can save us from the stalinist sego
Posted by: marc de Berner | May 3rd, 2007 at 11:38 pm | Report this commentMr Rachman,
Your coverage of this election has become of unexpected interest to me. Your latest blog lead on the debate is highly dismissive and seems strangely partisan. Yes. Neither candidate confronted the defining and critical issues. Yet, as you surely know, the French are unique in their widespread attention to the balances and imbalances in their administrative laws. Few here seemed bored by the length of discussion, end too few seemed interested in those topics that I believe would interest us and others who read these blogs.
So, permit me to ask why the FT has not explored the questions that dominate discussion at our dinner tables: 1) What does Sarko mean when he writes that he intends to restore the Church (and by extension the Temple and the Mosque) as a pillar of the French state? (See his book, Ma Vie, Ma Patrie et Mon Eglise, from last year, and look at his comments last night in Montpélier); 2) What was the true story behind l’affaire Clearstream?; 3) Why was Nicholas Sarkozy an early arrival at the crime scene of Edouard Stern’s death in March 2005 in Geneva, as has been reported, and the fact that Swiss police demanded he leave as fast as he came?; 4) What di Sarko hope to achieve when he arrived uninvited two years ago at the Agnelli villa, where M de Villepin was participating in a closed family business strategy meeting on Fiat’s post-GM future?; and, even closer to the foreign affairs pages, what about Sarko’s recall by Chirac from Washington in 2003 when the FT reported that he had strayed from his finance minister’s agenda in meeting with Perle, Wolfowitz, Rice and Rumsfeld (maybe Cheney, as well)?
You know these questions, and many others, are well circulated. Yet we’ve seen little coverage of them. I suggest the answers will tell us a lot about what a future with Sarko running France will look like. It will be different than France under Chirac, about whom some troubling questions may also be asked and have been explored in the pink pages.
Posted by: C in Paris | May 4th, 2007 at 11:21 am | Report this commentSégolène Royal’s suitability as a candidate has been a question widely addressed throughout this campaign. Has the French electorate become so much like the US that only traits that drive media ratings succeed? Unfortunately, France’s electorate cannot overturn expectations, as happened in the last Spanish election, as we do not have a Zapatero in Ségo. So, who are Sarko and Borloo? What will happen to the vaunted ENA crowd if he wins? Deft dodging of badly thrown stones in the debate are not what this story is about, except that it confirms, again, effective script management. By whom?
Posted by: C in Paris | May 4th, 2007 at 3:12 pm | Report this commentWhy French elections are so important these days?? France is no longer a dominant country in the World. Whoever wins the elections will not push Iran problem further, or help with the Doha round, or help with islamist extremism, or non-proliferation of WMD. French elections are now for french.
Posted by: Chen | May 4th, 2007 at 7:48 pm | Report this commentWhy French elections are so important these days?? France is no longer a dominant country in the World. Whoever wins the elections will not push Iran problem further, or help with the Doha round, or help with islamist extremism, or non-proliferation of WMD. French elections are now for french.
Posted by: Chen | May 4th, 2007 at 7:48 pm | Report this commentAs a long-time fan of the French and France (I studied there, have a French wife, bilingual kids and a holiday home there) I have followed the elections as closely as ever. Its great to see such a high turnout and to read that many inner-city suburbs have record registration and votings figures; that is how you express an opinion in a democracy, not by burning cars, no matter what names someone may call you (that’s part of being in a democracy too). Sarkozy will hopefully prove to be the right choice as at least he talks about changing things, and it is clear that some things at least need to be changed. The only thing that would have been sure with Sego was that change would have been limited and largely avoided dealing with the sacred cows in France that are eating up the country’s wealth and preventing it from adapting to the C20th, never mind the C21st. There will doubtless be a few moments with Sarko in charge when everybody is dumbfounded by some ill-judged comment of his, or thinks that on a particular issue he may be behaving like a bull in a china shop, but at least he is determined to change France and has the sort of dynamism that might make it possible. Perhaps train drivers might finally have to work to 65 like everybody else! I think that we will find he is not as damaging as he has been painted - all politicians have limited freedom of action these days so he probably won’t be as wild as his detractors say. But to paraphrase a Chinese proverb, ‘we live in interesting times’ - and it will be interesting to see what Sarko actually manages to do and how be behaves now he has reached the political office he has obviously dreamed of for so long!
Posted by: Nick Teal | May 7th, 2007 at 5:02 am | Report this comment