Postmortem: Eight Questions on the French Presidential Elections

  1. Did Sarkozy lose the election, or for the incumbent was this race unwinnable? Did Sarkozy and his handlers tragically misread or underestimate the strength and depth of anti-Sarkozy sentiment in the electorate?
  2. Does Hollande hold a mandate for anything? Did his blandness and seeming lack of substance improve his performance as the anti-incumbent?
  3. Which was the greatest disservice to Sarkozy’s campaign: morose economic conditions that would be a curse to any candidate; policy proposals that struck voters as unattractive (or even repulsive); or the candidate’s own personality (hyperactive, ever-changing)?
  4. Sarkozy held off, for a long time, in declaring his candidacy for re-election. Would his campaign have been better served had he officially announced his intention to seek re-election the day (before? after?) Hollande was anointed as his challenger?
  5. In 2007, Sarkozy ran as a candidate of change. This was no mean feat, as conservatives were in power, and Sarkozy held ministerial portfolios. In 2012, Sarkozy ran as an outsider (not as the incumbent, based on a record) seeking –paradoxically– to preserve (or conserve, but not to change) French institutions and lifestyle. Would Sarkozy have been better served by running, again in 2012, as the candidate for change?
  6. In 2007, Sarkozy’s “travailler plus pour gagner plus” (work more to earn more, earn more by working more) echoed Blair’s call for an “opportunity society”: both championed for social mobility. By 2012, social mobility disappeared from Sarkozy’s objectives. Evocations of “travail” (work) rang hollow and divisive. Would the Sarkozy campaign have stood better chances had the incumbent positioned himself as an advocate for social mobility?
  7. Sarkozy’s 2007 campaign slogan echoed an exhortation made long ago, under the reign of King Louis-Philippe, by statesman François Guizot: “Enrichissez-vous” (enrich yourselves). Both slogans shrugged off traditional unease with money and shone a favorable light on material prosperity. Unfavorable publicity surrounding Sarkozy –a celebratory dinner on the Champs-Elysées, a respite on a billionaire’s yacht, a noticeable penchant for aviator sunglasses and collectable watches– tempered arguments in favor of making money. Since the financial crisis, growth seems not to be even an option in Sarkozy’s mind. By 2012, any tax relief seemed off the table; Sarkozy instead pushed for a tax rearrangement that would cut some payroll taxes but boost VAT, paid by all and felt heavily by lower-income households. Would Sarkozy’s prospects have shown more promise had the candidate at least paid lip service to the goal of increasing household income and bettering material circumstances?
  8. Until a year ago, Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the socialist also-ran tapped by Sarkozy to head the IMF, seemed, largely on a widely shared assumption of economic competence, likely to win his party’s nomination and the 2012 presidential election. Once Strauss-Kahn ceased to be a political rival, why didn’t Sarkozy and his handlers build the incumbent’s campaign around economic themes, developed over several months?

The wrong team (continued)

French prime minister François Fillon accepted lavish gifts, including use of a private jet and luxury hotel accomodations, from Mubarek while vacationing in Egypt between Christmas and the New Year, it has been reported.

Fillon saw no need to comment on the situation until the day before a national newspaper went to press with the story. Fillon’s office has limited remarks, and the prime minister left National Assembly question time early, and ducking the press at appearances yesterday.

As with a similar problem with French foreign affairs minister Alliot-Marie, Fillon’s office answered questions posed with indirection: Fillon was on a private trip, but he did have a meeting with Mubarek; Fillon will pay (or has already paid) for use of a French government jet that carried him to and from Egypt.

To the fundamental question of why the leader of the government would feel compelled or entitled to accept significant gifts from the Egyptian strongman, silence seems to be the only answer.

Some commentators have drawn a connection between the Sarkozy presidency and a political class with loose morals. For my part, I’m inclined to believe that the scandal could have arisen under a left-wing government.

The big story is the insouciance with which the French political class willingly accepts –and maybe actively seeks– personal gain from office, while in office. The gains tend to be soft, consumable, and offshore; but there seems to be a cognitive gap where others would perceive conflict of interest, profiting from public service, or the appearance of impropriety.

The little story is a proclivity, at least among monied Parisians, towards long-distance travel during the week between Christmas and the New Year. In a manner akin to the “5-to-7″, where married men feel unduly imposed upon if asked to account for their late-afternoon activities, there may exist a French social habit where a nice vacation abroad is taken as a matter of course, not the subject for probing questions.

The wrong team

Despite an abundance of civic-minded talent among conservatives, French president Sarkozy continues to surround himself with people whom he knows but who lack policy skill or political savvy.

The most recent diplomatic blunder comes from the woman in charge of French diplomacy, foreign affairs minister Michèle Alliot-Marie.

Alliot-Marie was practically born into politics: her father was a political figure in the French Basque country (and is today a rugby referee, which in some respects is a higher political calling). Alliot-Marie long served as a local official on the Atlantic coast and as an MP. As though she were playing a ministerial Monopoly game, Alliot-Marie assumed the foreign affairs ministry last year, after having previously served in  conservative governments over the past twenty-five years as minister for justice, interior, defense, youth, and education.

Despite an impressive background in politics, Alliot-Marie has made some remarkably impolitic blunders in the past weeks.

Most recently, Alliot-Marie made an appearance in Cairo where she flattered the Mubarak regime with praise that seems not to have been necessary or diplomatically expedient.

This absence of diplomatic caution is all the more remarkable as Alliot-Marie had faced public criticism, only a few weeks earlier, in the wake of an offer of French savoir-faire in policing or riot control to the Ben Ali regime in Tunisia.

The revelation that most calls into question Alliot-Marie’s judgment is also the most personal, concerning a vacation Alliot-Marie took with her husband (a longtime conservative MP, now deputy minister for parliamentary relations) during a vacation between Christmas and the New Year.

Given that protest had already gripped Tunisia before her departure, Alliot-Marie’s first lapse in judgment was going on the holiday at all: even while traveling as a private person, Alliot-Marie’s ministerial function would give rise to all sorts of speculation.

More fundamentally, while on vacation, Alliot-Marie rode in a private jet and stayed at a luxury hotel owned by Tunisian businessman Aziz Miled. On this point, French commentators have gotten sidetracked, intrigued with minutia such as whether Miled was part of or apart from the Ben Ali regime. This misses the fundamental political point of accepting gifts, especially those offered by foreigners in turbulent places to the political head of a diplomatic service. It is remarkable that a diplomatic head, seasoned by decades in politics, would fail to appreciate the appearance of impropriety that accepting such gifts -calls for Alliot-Marie or her husband to produce receipts (for the hotel stay) have, so far, gone unanswered- would create. It is despairing that she would not have thought to take a few steps to make sure such an appearance would never be created.

Learning languages

French president Sarkozy announced a scheme to promote learning English. Sarkozy has trouble with his native tongue and has a limited command of English. His scheme revolves around preschoolers and computers. It won’t work: French students tread water in language classes for years, never progressing towards measurable competence; and French language teaching adores abstraction and hidebound rules.

Le Monde accompanied its report of the presidential scheme with testimony from its readers and bloggers. Their comments are eye-opening. Where and how do French people learn English? Not in the classroom, in class; but at home, while watching “South Park” or “Friends,” reading Harry Potter, or listening to popular music.

On languages, Sarkozy turns out to be more a follower than a leader. What is really happening, today, in French society is more impressive than politicians’ vague hopes for the future. The photo above was taken at a Relay newsstand in a Paris train station. The display window promotes four titles. Remarkably, the books are available in French translation, and also in English. A close look will reveal two lessons: the English-language books are physically smaller than the French translations; and the English-language books are significantly cheaper than the French translations.

No cause for alarm

This post is intended to reassure several readers who questioned whether Florence Woerth, the spouse of French labor minister Eric Woerth, had sacrificed her career in order to insulate her husband’s political career from potential scandal or harm.

Indeed, reported quid pro quo exchanges, where Woerth received a job and her boss received the Legion of Honor from her husband, led to Woerth’s resignation from Clymène. This company, where Woerth worked as a financial analyst, manages money for L’Oréal heiress Liliane Bettencourt and suffers heavy losses, year after year.

But Woerth’s departure from Clymène has not resulted in inactivity.

  • On June 7, Woerth was elected to the board of Hermès, a French luxury brand that nurtures an equestrian heritage.
  • Woerth is the founder and member of Dam’s, a stable whose shareholders are all women. Initially a quintent –Woerth was joined by Nathalie Bélinguier, Réjane Lacoste, Dominique Hazan, and Nicole Séroul (women involved in horse racing and textiles)– Dam’s has prospered and today counts about thirty members. Incidentally, under a law known by its French acronym, TEPA, investment in Dam’s yields significant tax benefits for its members. (The stable seems to have recently become publicity-shy, it’s web site having gone blank.)
  • Woerth is widely reported to have longstanding ties with France Galop, another equestrian organization. She seems, at the least, to have served in the past on its horse owners’ committee.

Woerth’s equestrian interests are close to home, as her husband is mayor of Chantilly, a major equestrian center in France. This having been said, matters equestrian have dealt Eric Woerth the misfortune of an additional controversy: the press is asking why, just be changing ministerial portfolios, Woerth authorized the sale of a racetrack complex, estimated as worth €20 million, for €2.5 million in favor of its politically friendly tenant.