France: Which Is More Important — Economic Growth or Social Justice?
5, May, 2007
by Iman Kurdi
The first televised presidential debate in 12 years took place last Wednesday between the two contenders for the French presidency. It lasted over two hours and was watched by over 23 million voters. The press soon dubbed it a duel. But who won?
Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal sat facing each other at a table with just 3 meters between them. Every detail of the performance had been hammered out in advance, from the temperature of the room, to whether or not they would shake hands (they did but on condition that the handshake could only be televised after the debate). It soon became apparent that they had been given clear consigns by their advisers to go against type: Royal was to show her masculine side, whilst Sarkozy was to highlight his gentle feminine side.
The result was a debate where Royal was combative, pugnacious, determined, angry, forceful, aggressive and strong, whilst Sarkozy remained placid, unflappable, calm, regal even. Perhaps because I am a woman, I preferred Sarkozy’s style. He looked so comfortable and assured, competent would be my word of choice. Royal in contrast irritated me — and that despite my willing her on to come out the winner. The bottom line is that Sarkozy communicates much more effectively than Royal: He is clear, he answers questions concisely and precisely, he keeps it simple. Royal is much more hazy, she mixes topics and speaks with emotion, she avoids numbers or precise proposals and instead focuses on lofty ideas and ideals. She has a vision of France, Sarkozy has a project for France.
And no matter how much I disagree with Sarkozy’s views on immigration and how much I sense in him a strong dislike for Muslims and Arabs — who after all make up the majority of “the rabble that he wishes to karcherise” — I can only agree with him when he speaks of economics. France needs the reforms he has in mind. It needs to liberalize its employment laws (the most restrictive in Europe), it needs to reduce its tax burden (the highest in Europe), it needs to reverse the brain drain, it needs to jump-start its economy. As commentator after commentator has pointed out, France needs its own Margaret Thatcher.
But Thatcher was elected after not before the winter of discontent. When she came into power, there was an unstoppable impulsion for change. Sarkozy is in an entirely different situation. If you look at how France reacted to the introduction of a simple piece of employment law — a job contract — and the way the country was almost brought down to its knees over it, you have to ask yourself how Sarkozy will be able to undertake more significant and extensive reforms. And when you look at the disastrous way Sarkozy handled the riots of 2005, you wonder whether Sarkozy is the man to do it. One thing is for sure: If he is elected and if he tries to turn his promises into action, he will have a mammoth fight with the unions on his hands. But can he beat them when most French men and women still hanker after the social security blanket they have grown up with?
Royal, on the other hand, promises good old-fashioned state intervention. Her solution to everything lies either in dialogue between social partners or in the state providing magic solutions through legislation. It is the nanny state par excellence. It cannot work. The reality is that France is in massive debt and cannot afford to artificially prop up its economy in the way that she proposes. But does it matter? Many voting for her, particularly those coming from the center, are voting for her because she appears a safe choice. She is unlikely to actually put in place even half of what she promises. What we would likely get is simply more of the same. And that is reassuring, whilst Sarkozy is frightening, a word that Royal has been keen to use about her rival in the closing hours of the campaign.
So I found myself veering toward Sarkozy as the winner of this much-hyped dual. Until that is he touched on issues close to my heart: Immigration and Turkish membership of the EU. Here my antipathy for the man returned and I breathed a sigh of relief as Royal spoke for me, spoke with respect and understanding, spoke for social justice and tolerance. And so I asked myself: Which is more important economic development or social justice? And can you have one without the other? The polls suggest the French public found Sarkozy more convincing. His lead has increased since the debate and Royal has been forced into a defensive desperate tone: “There is still hope” she said yesterday. There is always hope, but when hope is all you have left, it does not bode well.
Update:
Olmert congratulates French people on election of Nicolas Sarkozy
Tony Blair offers his congratulations to Nicolas Sarkozy following his victory in the French presidential election.
by Iman Kurdi
The first televised presidential debate in 12 years took place last Wednesday between the two contenders for the French presidency. It lasted over two hours and was watched by over 23 million voters. The press soon dubbed it a duel. But who won?
Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal sat facing each other at a table with just 3 meters between them. Every detail of the performance had been hammered out in advance, from the temperature of the room, to whether or not they would shake hands (they did but on condition that the handshake could only be televised after the debate). It soon became apparent that they had been given clear consigns by their advisers to go against type: Royal was to show her masculine side, whilst Sarkozy was to highlight his gentle feminine side.
The result was a debate where Royal was combative, pugnacious, determined, angry, forceful, aggressive and strong, whilst Sarkozy remained placid, unflappable, calm, regal even. Perhaps because I am a woman, I preferred Sarkozy’s style. He looked so comfortable and assured, competent would be my word of choice. Royal in contrast irritated me — and that despite my willing her on to come out the winner. The bottom line is that Sarkozy communicates much more effectively than Royal: He is clear, he answers questions concisely and precisely, he keeps it simple. Royal is much more hazy, she mixes topics and speaks with emotion, she avoids numbers or precise proposals and instead focuses on lofty ideas and ideals. She has a vision of France, Sarkozy has a project for France.
And no matter how much I disagree with Sarkozy’s views on immigration and how much I sense in him a strong dislike for Muslims and Arabs — who after all make up the majority of “the rabble that he wishes to karcherise” — I can only agree with him when he speaks of economics. France needs the reforms he has in mind. It needs to liberalize its employment laws (the most restrictive in Europe), it needs to reduce its tax burden (the highest in Europe), it needs to reverse the brain drain, it needs to jump-start its economy. As commentator after commentator has pointed out, France needs its own Margaret Thatcher.
But Thatcher was elected after not before the winter of discontent. When she came into power, there was an unstoppable impulsion for change. Sarkozy is in an entirely different situation. If you look at how France reacted to the introduction of a simple piece of employment law — a job contract — and the way the country was almost brought down to its knees over it, you have to ask yourself how Sarkozy will be able to undertake more significant and extensive reforms. And when you look at the disastrous way Sarkozy handled the riots of 2005, you wonder whether Sarkozy is the man to do it. One thing is for sure: If he is elected and if he tries to turn his promises into action, he will have a mammoth fight with the unions on his hands. But can he beat them when most French men and women still hanker after the social security blanket they have grown up with?
Royal, on the other hand, promises good old-fashioned state intervention. Her solution to everything lies either in dialogue between social partners or in the state providing magic solutions through legislation. It is the nanny state par excellence. It cannot work. The reality is that France is in massive debt and cannot afford to artificially prop up its economy in the way that she proposes. But does it matter? Many voting for her, particularly those coming from the center, are voting for her because she appears a safe choice. She is unlikely to actually put in place even half of what she promises. What we would likely get is simply more of the same. And that is reassuring, whilst Sarkozy is frightening, a word that Royal has been keen to use about her rival in the closing hours of the campaign.
So I found myself veering toward Sarkozy as the winner of this much-hyped dual. Until that is he touched on issues close to my heart: Immigration and Turkish membership of the EU. Here my antipathy for the man returned and I breathed a sigh of relief as Royal spoke for me, spoke with respect and understanding, spoke for social justice and tolerance. And so I asked myself: Which is more important economic development or social justice? And can you have one without the other? The polls suggest the French public found Sarkozy more convincing. His lead has increased since the debate and Royal has been forced into a defensive desperate tone: “There is still hope” she said yesterday. There is always hope, but when hope is all you have left, it does not bode well.
Update:
Olmert congratulates French people on election of Nicolas Sarkozy
Tony Blair offers his congratulations to Nicolas Sarkozy following his victory in the French presidential election.
Labels: France, Israel, UK, United States
posted by HRM Deborah of Israel and the Messenger of Peace at 8:00 AM
2 Comments:
awesome post!
Anonymous,
Thank you :)
Post a Comment
<< Home