A little international journey here at the Eremite, today we travel to the sun and wine drenched home of the Gauls, jewel of Charlemagne's empire, the birthplace of liberal revolutions (Edmund Burke correctly identified the American Revolution as a conservative revolution), the ever cultured nation of France. Recently, in a rather historic run-off, the neo-conservative Nicolas Sarkozy won the five-year term of president (and will take the reins from the impossibly venerable Jacques Chirac on May 16). The election was historic for two reasons, this marks the first time that there is a French president who was born after World War II and the first time a women was the prime contender for the seat (a Socialist even).
Well, this new finds the Eremite at a bit of a loss. On one side, I am relieved . One of Sarkozy's first statements was an explicit olive branch to the United States, one of the first since the diplomatic debacle over weapons of mass destruction, oil trade, and unilateral warfare that dealt a nasty blow to US-French relations at the beginning of the Iraq war. As New York Democratic senator Chuck Schumer said, "it would be nice to have someone who is head of France who doesn't almost have a knee-jerk reaction against the United States." Sarkozy's victory came despite the fact that Sarkozy's rival, the attractive communist Segolene Royal, directly compared him and his neo-conservative leanings towards "law and order" (some people charge him with being borderline fascist) with George W Bush. Does this mean that the French people, knowing the political climate in the United States, explicitly chose the candidate that would heal the rift? Are the French voicing a subtle support of U.S. foreign policy (ironic, perhaps George W's public opinion polls would be higher outside of his home nation)?
On the flip side, there is much about Sarkozy that raises cause for alarm. Despite his very Polish nom-de-familie, he proposes an increasingly restrictive immigration policy for the usually very open French borders (he states that France should not be the home for Europe's "miseries"). Sarkozy uses the rhetoric of conciliation and friendship with North Africa, but his proposed policies indicate a bit otherwise. North Africans were the major agitators in the recent riots that shook Paris last year, and North African immigrants make up around 3-6 million of metropolitan France's near 61 million inhabitants. Sarkozy's election was immediately greeted with rioting, partially due to his hard line stance against labor unions, with policies that would force public sector unions (which have an undue amount of power in France) to provide a minimum amount of service even during a strike. This may be quite palatable to any non-French who have been stuck in their hotel during a trip due to one of the many public transit strikes (this author included). Sarkozy leans on his mandate, 53% of the vote, as a clear sign that the unions should not (and cannot) resist his changes.
Certainly Sarkozy's popularity stems from the uncertainty, chaos, and unpleasantness of the last two year's riots. According to eye-witness accounts, even downtown Paris was shut down and barricaded to protect businesses from the violence. Similar to Bush's spike in popularity after 911, it may be that (in a trend that keeps up with historical precedent) France's voting citizenry moved decisively into the save and traditional arms of conservatism, which promises security and order (the people of France did this at least once before, and put in place Napoleon Bonaparte to pull them from the chaos of the Reign of Terror and the Directory). It certainly raises this author's suspicion that Sarkozy only openly criticized the Bush and the U.S. government's stance toward global warming rather than the human rights scandals (Gitmo, Iraqi prisons, phone tapping), the justice department scandals, the jingoism, or the deteriorating situation of the Iraqi war.
So what will five years bring for France? Only a few years ago, Le Pen was too radical, now the message has changed? Who knows, perhaps in five years there will be the social divisions that exists now in the United States, due to the polarizing between neo-conservatism and liberals? Will Sarkozy and his policies exacerbate the already stark socio-economic gaps, typically based on racial or religious (Muslim) divisions? Perhaps there will be a renewed strengthening of the US-French relationship, ushering in a rebuilding of the US presence in Europe? Or perhaps the French have fallen into a trap, choosing a familiar face to save them from social upheaval and terror.
If you know who this picture is... then you might get what I am saying...
Frankly, from the US standpoint, this is certainly the best way that the election could have gone. Certainly the current administration (and possibly the next one) would have little in common with the socialist Royal, who was openly hostile to both Bush and American endeavors.
Abbot Chris
5 comments:
First of all, whatever your perceptions of a ghostly olive branch, France will still need to take care of its business at home before taking a solid stance on one of its allies projects. America, like France's other allies, will still have to make an argument of action to mobilize support (when it actually needs it, that is).
Equating Sarkozy's election to Bush's popularity would be misaligned. The similarities would not be "certain". Where the US public backed the administrative government (among other institutions) after 9/11, domestic instability under Chirac caused people to vote out the governing incumbent. The French wanted a new economic/governing/policy structure. The American public wanted to ensure that the established structures survived.
Guilty of misguided egocentrism is any American who feels that the French people: 1) Know the political climate in the US. -and- 2) Would vote a domestic executive to favor another nation.
Might one speculate that the reason few other nations' administrators openly make platform rhetoric of certain human rights situations, because they themselves are aware that those same situations will occur under their banner?
As for immigration, it may be a leap to claim that the French have a "very open" border. While France has opened its borders to refugees, (WARNING: egocentric US comparison forthcoming) the process is much more regulated than America's porous policies. NationMaster.com shows a 20% difference in the rate of immigrants granted citizenship in America versus France. It would take a lot of work for the US to close down its borders to a level that rivals French human imports.
America was founded on the polarization of Europe's divisions. It would be short-sighted and arrogant to claim that the French are only now dealing with the schisms generated by evolving self and cultural awareness.
At this point, the new president appears to be a favorable choice. However, practical experience and decisionmaking down the road will show how valuable the president actually is to the ongoing American way of life. Friends can always think differently.
Humbly, briefly...
Ps. When's our next France trip??? :D
I think you are fooling yourself if you believe that Europeans are somehow "unaware" or "ignorant" of the political climate in America and do not vote accordingly. Unlike the rather uninformed American public, European knows what goes on in the US (particularly in what the US does overseas). European news networks (unlike the US equivilant) focus highly on North American politics (it seems that the middle east, Korea, and the US is all that exists according to Fox News and CNN TV coverage). In fact, Royale specifically compared Sarkozy with Bush as part of her campaign (if the French were not knowledgable of US politics, what good would this tactic be). You surely have read Le Monde? It always has a variety of articles, but they tend to have several on the EU and at least one or two on the US. Remember the US federal government is one monolithic entity for foreign news to track, making it much easier than US news trying to track/sell news on the myriad federal governments in the EU. They can get much more detail on America on a page, while US news tends to just lump together the EU, forgetting the distinct governments of its members. Besides, it may be egocentric, but lets face it, what the US government decides to do, tends to affect the entire world.
To put the political aptitude of the French in perspective, in the first round of voting 85% electorate voted. This is a number unhead of in the US, where numbers rarely ever reach near 50% of the electorate. The French are politically savvy, with more political parties, and a rather distinct knowledge of a myriad of issues (pretty par for the course for the nation that had had several revolutions, monarchs, emperors, and 3 republics, n'est-ce pas).
A factual inaccuracy in your post. Jacques Chirac was not part of the election, so this was not a "vote out the governing incumbent" situation. Chirac was a centrist, maybe a little center-left, and Sarkozy is from a center-right party, so politically they are not extremely different. If France wanted a drastic change, they would have voted for Royale, the socialist (or La Pen). In fact, Jean-Marie La Pen did run (far-right nationalist, read facist, party), but only got 10% of the vote as compared to 16.9% in 2002.
France does have a bunch of domestic issues to work out, one of which is unemployment. The French unemployment rate (according to CIA Worldbook, 2006) is 8.7%. The US unemployment is 4.7%. Much of that unemployment in France is the North African immigrants, thus the rioting. But the rioting originally arose by the accidental death of two teenagers being chased by the police. Affirmitive action is a huge issue there as well.
But to think that all this doesn't tie in to US policy and comparisons is a bit short-sighted. Sarkozy was well know to have made a much-criticized statement regarding US envolvement in Iraq. While Minister of the Interior, Sarkozy, still condemning Iraq, said that it was shameful for France to turn its back and "embarass" their allies. He stated that France should never turn disagreements into a crisis again, a clear indication of his support for the US, one that many French must now support.
Sarkozy is, a bit more ominously, a big believer that certain diseases and proclivities toward crime (like pediphilia) are genetically based. Said publically, that sort of rhetoric is a bit scary.
On an unrelated note, the CIA Worldbook lists the date of French "Indepencence" as 486 AD, unified by Clovis. Funny!
Abbot Chris
Clearly being one of the uninformed public, I feel only remorse and decline further blog trolling until I can get back into the loop. It's been too long since I knew what was happening in the world. Really miss my good friends, the New York Times and the Economist. It would help if it didn't take a 45 minute drive to attain these... Guess I just need to spend less time reading online commentary on news and getting the actual factuals.
Ps. Good points...
You know, they do have an online version of the New York Times that can be printed out (will they not deliver to your door) if you subscribe. And you could read it at work... when you are, uh... not busy...
Sorry to hear about the Mayorial primaries back home. The outcome was less than optimal.
Chris
Post a Comment