Francois Hollande vs Extreme Right? Been There, Done Nothing

France's extreme right party Front National claimed almost 25% of the votes at the European election, finishing for the first time as the first party in the country, four points ahead of the UMP. The ruling Socialist Party didn't even reach 14%.


French PM Manuel Valls described the results as an "earthquake". They're even worse than 12 years ago, when Jean-Marie Le Pen finished second at the first round of the Presidential Elections, kicking socialist PM Lionel Jospin out of the race for less than 200,000 ballots. Jacques Chirac went on to win the second round, but a few months later his gaullist, conservative RPR merged into the new center-right UMP. Surprisingly, the humiliated PS refused to reform, and it had something to do with the "leadership" of its First Secretary Francois Hollande, a person who loves to talk about change, but has never done anything to prove it.

When Hollande got elected in 2012, I wrote "France refuses to change" because there was no better way to sum it up. The scariest thing is not the earthquake, but the desperate flatness of French democracy's EEG.

Francois Hollande vs Extreme Right? Been There, Done Nothing
2002 Presidential Elections in France: Le Pen reaches 2nd round
2014 European Elections in France: Front National the 1st political party
Francois Hollande 1998-2008: First Secretary of the French Socialist Party
Francois Hollande 2012-2017: President of the French Republic
2002: Gaullist, conservative RPR merges into new center-right party UMP
2014: UMP evolves into???

When democracy stalls, extremes always win. And the FN didn't even have to modify its DNA to win: Jean-Marie Le Pen claimed one region, his daugther Marine another, and Marine's mate Louis Aliot yet another.

The only good news may be the fact that the UMP is at long last forced to dump Sarkozy's doomed "rightization" strategy. In the weeks and months to come, the party will either evolve towards the center, or implode. 

The Socialist Party imploded a long time ago, but managed to win an election here and there, when its rivals played it even dumber than dumb. France cannot afford two zombies any longer.

• Also on blogules V.F.: "Séisme ou Encéphalo Plat?"

blogules 2014
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!! and Twitter (@stephanemot, @blogules)

Follow Us

France refuses to change

Well. Now that Nicolas Sarkozy is out of the picture, will the actual political debate start? You know, the kind with real bits of genuine ideas, ideology-free?

Let's face it: we'll have to wait some more, and probably far beyond the upcoming legislative elections. Which shall be, like the presidential elections, handed on a plate by the incumbent to the opposition because in his political suicide, Sarkozy erected an inextricable triangle between amoral populists (UMP leader Jean-Francois Cope, a Sarko mini-me), moderate reformers (former PMs Francois Fillon and Alain Juppe), and the extreme right (Marine Le Pen's Front National).

By "political suicide", I'm not refering to Sarkozy's shameless courting of Le Pen's voters, but to the very fact that this Hyper-Hype President decided to seek a second mandate, ultimate proof that the man totally lacks historical vision and distance with himself. As I forecast the very evening of his election in 2007*, Sarkozy had been awarded a very clear mandate to reform, but would risk everything should he ever try to betray the Republic by undermining its pilars (particularly secularism, and the balance of powers - executive, legislative, judiciary, media...).

The "surprise" lies in the narrowness of the score** which, combined to a massive total of blank votes, confirmed that the republican sanction against Nicolas Sarkozy was not at all coupled with a massive adhesion to Francois Hollande or to his program. In spite of the record unpopularity of his opponent, Hollande barely fulfilled the only promise he could keep: to replace Sarkozy. Should he fail to win a large legislative majority in spite of the above mentioned 'political triangles', "Flanby" would fully deserve his nickname: a brand of sweet, soft, boneless pudding, promoted to the top job simply because it happened to be there when DSK and Sarkozy committed suicide.

Anyway, by opting for a run off between two promises of denial and 'fuite en avant', the French had already decided two weeks ago to procrastinate, to refuse the debate, to refuse change. Alternation without the courage of reforming, that's cowardness, that's the non-choice, not casting a blank vote. Full disclosure: I voted for change and reforms within the Republic in the first round (Francois Bayrou), and for change and reforms within the Republic in the second round (blank vote = blank page for the future winner, who will end up facing reality and rewriting his program / BTW just like she doesn't own France, Marine Le Pen doesn't own the blank vote).

Beyond France, both leading parties are also condemned to reform themselves, and the earlier the better. Nicolas Sarkozy managed to destroy the UMP the very same way George W. Bush did with the Republican Party***, and even if they manage to get rid of 'mini-me' Cope, center-right moderates probably won't have time to sort things out before the legislative elections. Even if its 'champion' won, the French Socialist Party remains an embarrassing anachronism refusing to evolve towards a modern socio-democracy, refusing to purge itself ideologically, refusing to accept that the 'French model' must adapt to survive, refusing to consider 'solutions' that are not demagogic and not ideologically driven, refusing to consider welfare policies that are not undermining welfare state as a whole. Marine Le Pen might be the first one to officially reform her party, but make no mistake: the Front National will only rename itself to fool more people into distancing themselves from democratic and republican values.

Denial can help you win elections, but Greece show us the economical, political, and social future of democracies that stick to the self-destructive dynamics of a system based on "reformless alternation".

blogules 2012
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!!

* see "2012 Presidential Elections in France - It's not the economy, stupid", and in French "Traitre à la nation", "Sarko triomphe - Blogule blanc aux reformes"
** FH 51.6%, NS 48.4% (or FH 48.5%, NS 45.6%, blank 5.8%)
*** see "GOP: time to split"

2012 Presidential Elections in France - It's not the economy, stupid

In 2011, America discovered that helping a young democracy could result in a new theocracy. France tried that too, back in 1776, and as of today, the result is still unclear: the President of the United States pledges allegiance on a Bible, finishing with a vibrant "so help me God", and he would never dare ending a speech without godblessamericaing the audience urbi et orbi, for fear of being considered Un-Amerikan. In this presumably model democracy, all Greenbacks are tagged with the words "in God we trust", Satanists are better considered than atheists because at least they believe in fallen angels, and self-proclaimed 'republicans' would rather be represented by a Christian ayatollah (Santorum) than a moderate Mormon (Romney).

Technically, mixing religion with politics is not compatible with democratic and republican ideals, and I already explained how, in France, putting secularism at the core of the Constitution was meant to secure both democracy and the freedom of religion, and how that fragile balance was undermined as Nicolas Sarkozy followed George W. Bush's dangerous path (see "France, secularism and burqa : a political issue, not a religious one").

Of course, the French democracy was threatened long before Bush or Sarko came to power. And the 'laicite' and 'egalite' dogmas didn't succeed in a truly multicultural / multicultual society.

Anyway. Back in 2007, I voted Sarkozy because France needed reforms, and only he could deliver. I didn't trust the man, but somehow counted on the vast majority of UMP lawmakers to prevent him from breaking his very formal pledge to respect the French brand of secularism. Of course, Sarkozy implemented only a small part of the necessary reforms, and broke his pledge. He followed Bush's missteps to the tiniest detail, undermining the delicate balance of powers at all levels (executive, legislative, justice, media, religion...).

I can't imagine how low the French economy would have dived had Segolene Royal won the 2007 elections, but we would probably be very glad to maintain double A ratings. Yet unlike most his European counterparts who got the pink slip following the (first) depression, Sarkozy will not be judged by the economy: he simply cannot be re-elected because he betrayed the nation.

His main rival, Francois Hollande, also happens to be an impostor. He even received a boost from Sarkozy, who believed he could play the same trick as in 2007: I have my friends in the media push a weak and hollow candidate (then Hollande companion Segolene Royal), I vampirize the extreme-right with preemptive strikes in the no-man's land between 'law and order' and outright fascism, and I leverage my reputation as a doer.

Hollande is not as weak and hollow as he seems to be: he shares some of the key 'qualities' that helped his model, Francois Mitterrand, reach the top... only not the qualities leftist voters wished he had. And unsurprisingly, the worst enemy of Hollande happens to be Mitterrand's archrival Michel Rocard.

Traditionally, the French have their hearts on their left, but their wallets on their right, so they tend to vote for a center-right candidate. Fourty years ago, Mitterrand, a conservative with an ambiguous Vichy background, highjacked the Socialist party and managed to build an artificial platform where the Communists brought the votes needed to claim the Elysee Palace. Rocard, the reformer who dreamt of transforming a patchworked party into a modern social democrat powerhouse, was sidelined before witnessing, helplessly, his side fail miserably each time it claimed victory (most notably: ill timed, ideology driven 'reforms' in the early eighties or late nineties).

Holland lacks experience in governments, but he already proved his inability and unwillingness to reform the Socialist Party when he was Secretary General. Worse, instead of seizing the momentum when he finally was chosen as the party champion, he opted for yet another impossible consensus. Needless to say, his majority is bound to fail.

So the choice for those 2012 elections is clear: continuity, alternation, or change.
- Continuity means Nicolas Sarkozy and a moral collapse.
- Alternation means Francois Hollande and a deeper decline for French economy and politics.
- Change means either Marine Le Pen and the Front National, a French Revolution for the worse, or Francois Bayrou and the MoDem, a bet on the ability to build a national alliance government with moderate reformers from both sides.

Back in 2007, I hesitated between Bayrou and Sarkozy: the former would have made a good and fair president, but he didn't have the capacity to reform. Now France could be ready for a less partisan approach. Furthermore, a Bayrou victory would necessarily lead to the much needed reforms of both the Parti Socialiste and the UMP. The PS remains one of the few dinosaurs sticking to XIXth century politics, and the UMP needs to discard un-republican (no cap letter, please) elements from its platform.

The worse is that even top members from both leading parties are not enthusiastic about their own champions:
- socialist 'elephants' know Hollande is a fake but the right has never been that weak ahead of a Presidential election (even the Senate sports a socialist 'pink'), and nice positions are up for grabs in the government
- UMP leaders know Sarko doesn't stand a chance, and they already prepare for 2017 and the ineluctable failure of Hollande. Francois Fillon plans to conquer Paris and to capitalize on a strong performance as PM, while Jean-Francois Cope shamelessly carves himself into a Sarkozy mini-me.

Compared to Nicolas Sarkozy's, Barack Obama's reelection bid almost looks like a stroll in the park: both performed relatively well on the economic front, but the POTUS can put much more blame on the opposition, including during his tenure (after the 'sound economy of 2008', last year's budget mess...), and the Republican Party is even more divided, ideologically crippled, inconsistent, and unfit to govern than the French Socialist Party.


blogules 2012
Since 2003, nonsensical posts about noncritical issues in nonenglish (get your blogules transfusion in French)
NEW: join blogules on Facebook!!!

Angry Birds - Acropolis

Can European leaders destroy the Greek landmark, move to the next level, and break their debt records ? This version of the "Angry Birds" game looks rather easy.

The dream team is ready:
- first you've got the small red bird, the EU. You know, the whatchacallit stuff around the EuroZone, where David Cameron is sometimes invited to give a speech. Totally powerless, but if it keeps knocking at your door it can cause some damage.
- then there's the yellow bird, Sarkozy. A pointed face and a crooked walk, but it can suddenly accelerate and crash head first into whatever's on its way. Spectacular, but it can't huff and puff a real wall down all by himself.
- now the big red bird, that's a completely different story. That's Merkel. It's slow and heavy, and it doesn't move often... but when it does, even the hearth trembles.
- another bird that can cause havoc ? The black one, Berlusconi. A touchy thing that can't fly far, but when it lands it simply explodes and destroys everything.
- I almost forgot to mention the blue bird, the Baltic states. From a distance it looks like a tiny small fella, until you realize there are three of them. Still not very powerful, but boy can they break'em glass ceilings !
- but the bird that's the closest to finish the game is the white one, Papandreou. This egghead moves slowly, then drops his bomb, and escapes in a hurry.

Next level : Angry Birds - Roma.

blogules 2011

Of haircut and hair-splitting trends in Europe

Here are the main decisions taken in Brussels by Eurozone leaders :
- Greece is saved : since George Papandreou was already almost bald, banks will get the haircuts. And as the first country to adopt the new SubEuro, Greece shall inaugurate S&P's new rating systems (phi beta kappAAA)
- Italy is saved : Silvio Berlusconi's ratings will not be downgraded (BungabungAAA+)
- France is saved : andouillettes will keep their most attractive labels (AAAAA)
- Germany is saved : Angela Merkel will control the European Financial Stability Facility (EFSF). She already mandated her new finance minister, Herman Cain, to implement his latest 9-9-9 formula (9% Bitburger, 9% Tsingtao, 9% CaipirinhAAA+)
- the UK is saved : David Cameron will become King of the Northern half of the NonEuroZone and the nation enjoy its specific ratings (USAAA-)
- the Euro is saved : as soon as Mario Draghi succeeds Jean-Claude Trichet as head of the ECB, all junk bonds shall be handled by Naples Waste Managment Offshore Limited (CamorrAAA+)

Not everyone agrees.

Ever the rebel and the haircut and hair-splitting diva, Paris Hilton decided to initiate the Occupy Rodeo Drive movement. And in order to fend off police forces who may try to prevent her from raiding shops, she can count on her latest Fendi Hit Bag.

blogules 2011

2004 inverted

Justice !!! Rupert Murdoch the amoral Kingmaker drowning in his own slime, George W. Bush the amoral Chief Torture Officer about to be indicted by Human Rights Watch...

Of course, neither Murdoch nor Dubya are in jail yet (heck, even Alberto Gonzales is walking free !), but the 'winners' of the 2004 elections have definitely moved closer to the 'losers' category. Note that the GOP joined the said category even before those doomed elections*, torn between classic conservatism and a cocktail of theocons + free market ayatollahs willing to destroy the Republic itself...

Of course, the US of A remain in danger of bankrupcy or worse, of a relapse into moral bankrupcy. Of course, UK politics remain under "Dirty Digger"'s spell, David Cameron prolonging Tony Blair as Murdoch's Prime Puppet.

But at long last, some fingers are being pointed to the right direction (and when I write 'right' I don't necessarily mean it literally).

Now France too has significantly evolved since 2004. But certainly not in the right direction (except maybe literally).

Remember France, that longtime US ally crucified for mentioning the risks that Bush's crusade in Iraq might fuel worldwide terror instead of taming it (yeah, France, that good friend of African and Middle Eastern dictators) ? Remember France, that herald of mutual respect denouncing the clash of civilizations imposture (yeah, France, that place where only sportsmen and sportswomen can succeed if their skin is too dark) ? Remember France, that country where Murdoch's Weapons of Mass Disinformation couldn't strike except for a one shot French edition of the Sun making fun of Chirac, or the infamous 'cheese eating surrender monkey' uttered in an episode of the Simpsons (yeah, the less unsung France, that country where medias consider off limits the dirty secrets of their most respected politicians) ?

Well that France is passed on ! This France is no more ! It has ceased to be ! It's expired and gone to meet its maker ! This is a late France ! It's a stiff ! Bereft of life, it rests in peace ! If you hadn't nailed it to the UN Security Council it would be pushing up the daisies ! Its metabolical processes are of interest only to historians ! It's hopped the twig ! It's shuffled off this mortal coil ! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible ! This is an ex-France !

Over the past few years, Nicolas Sarkozy has been dutifully** following Dubya The Perfect Fundamentalist's to do list :
- undermining the republic's safeguards ? check.
- extending the executive power's sphere against all other powers (legislative, media, justice...) ? check.
- pushing for an end to the separation between the state and religion and palling around with Ratzinger ? check.
- widening all national divides, starting with his own party ? check...

And now, Presidential Elections that have Karl Rove's fingerprints all over them.

Well. As far as Dominique Strauss-Kahn is concerned, Sarko's diggers didn't have to venture too deep into the pigsty : DSK knew perfectly that they were coming at him, but apparently the guy is too sick to control his own behavior...

But for Martine Aubry, an Angela Merkel wannabe and now their main target, here's their story : the socialist mayor of Lille would be a lesbian and an alcoholic (I thought they would save that last one for Jean-Louis Borloo, a center-right contender with a solid reputation in that field), and her husband would be a dangerous radical Islamist.

Of course, just like Bush in 2004, Sarkozy decently cannot win the elections in 2012 : that would be an insult to the Republic and a tragedy for the country, and bring absolute shame on French voters.

Well fool me once...

blogules 2011 (see also in French blogules : "Un Novembre 2004 a l'envers")

* see "GOP - Time to split"
** see "Traître à la nation"

WikiLeakified

blogule's Agence Fausse Presse managed to snatch from PeepeeLeaks a few top secret cables where several US envoys deliver their impressions about key world leaders:

- Nicolas Sarkozy : "A paranoid in love with the States, or rather obsessed with the need to be loved by Tom Cruise. Instills terror into his staff : no one dares criticize him, and he's been replacing them one by one by Oompas Loompas who call him "Your Highness", "Your Greatness", or "Dear Ladder". Now Sarkozy only refers to himself in third person."

- Silvio Berlusconi : "Like many statesmen, an eternal teenager obsessed with new conquests... which in spite of compulsive plastic surgery he needs to pay for. Told us to kiss Don Vito hello, and to thank him for his last delivery of Ukrainian blondes."

- Mahmoud Ahmadinejad : "A narcissic psychopath lunatic. Likely to be good friends with our President George W. Bush."

- Tony Blair : "Very friendly but on the threshold of annoyingness. Insisted to show us his self-flagellation stigmata. Asked again for that seance with Churchill promised by the POTUS."

- Vladimir Putin : "When he enters the room, temperature drops 20 degrees. Each of his muscles is so tensed he constantly needs to tune them like piano strings... quite an experience: his face doesn't move one bit, but every five to six seconds you can hear a 'pling' or a 'plong'."

- Muammar al Gaddafi : "Couldn't meet him: the elevator got stuck between the 4th and 5th floors of his tent."

- Hu Jintao / Wen Jiabao : "The former has the sense of humor of a prison door. No wonder he wants to get rid of the latter, a brillant man with a constant smile on his face. But last time I had tea at Wen's (as usual a very pleasant afternoon), I found out back home that he'd planted about eight hundred acupuncture needles all over my back."

- Saddam Hussein : "Didn't understand why we got rid of him after all he did for us and we for him. Didn't like our farewell gift, a beautiful Lanvin hemp necktie."

blogules 2010 - initially published on blogules VF as "WikiLeakefie".

France, secularism and burqa : a political issue, not a religious one

As soon as Nicolas Sarkozy said that Burqas were "not welcome" in France, the debate rippled across the World.

I mean THE debate. Not about the burqa, but about France itself : the country would be intolerant and undermining freedom of religion.

I faced the same misunderstanding from Muslims, Jews, Christians, and even atheists following my blogule "No to Burqa = No to Fundamentalism... Christian Fundamentalism included" ("Non à la Burqa = Non au fondamentalisme... Chrétien y compris").

I should say the same double misunderstanding :

• classic misunderstanding : fundamentalism is about politics, not religion. Claiming independence from fundamentalism is about saving democracy, but also about saving freedom of religion... see my usual pitch about the fundamentalist imposture ("Universal Declaration of Independence From Fundamentalism").
  
• cultural misunderstanding : France's very specific flavor of secularism, and the cultural exception (particularly compared to the US) regarding religion in general

Thus the key point in that blogule : in France more than anywhere else, wearing a burqa is a political statement. France should deal with the issue peacefully, on the grounds of the republican law. It is not and should not become a debate about religion.

So I fully agree with Sarkozy when he says that "Burqa is not a problem of religion" and "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic".

But I have a slightly different position when I consider his full sentences :

=> "Burqa is not a problem of religion, but a problem of dignity of women / Burqa is not a religious sign, it's a sign of subservience, a sign of debasement" : yes and yes, human rights are definitely involved, but the cause of enslaved women will be even better defended if we act simultaneously at the political level.

Typically, some woman do wear the burqa of their own free will, and fundamentalists do claim that burqas defend the dignity of women because they are protected from the gaze of men.
We must naturally stand strong in the women's rights and freedom of religion debates, but we must also position ourselves on different planes to embrace the true nature of the subject and the true nature of fundamentalism.
Because burqa is not "a problem of religion", but a problem of politics. And a Burqa doesn't protect a woman from male gaze : integral coverings in general (burqa, niqab, masks hiding the face) withdraw people (male or female, of their own free will or not, those are yet other stories) from the watch of the Republic. Accepting this would mean accepting the most essential claim of fundamentalists : their strict set of principles supercedes the laws of the Republic. And in France, what burqas do is to put people beyond the reach of law in a secular Republic, which makes it even more offensive*.
Actually, Sarkozy didn't raise the burqa issue in Versailles out of the blue (chadri ?) : he merely reacted to many complaints by mayors and representatives of the Republic who noticed the incompatibility of such garments with the exercise of law (not to mention, of course, complaints of human right activists, women, moderate Muslims...).

=> Burqa "is not welcome on the territory of the Republic. We must not be afraid of our values, nor of defending them" : yes and yes, it is a matter of values. But let's be very careful not to fuel mutual hatred within the Republic and beyond.

Sarkozy is talking about a garment, but certain people can interpret his words a very different way : "territory" and "our values" resonate very well in extreme right circles, where xenophobia, racism, Islamophobia... and the ultimate theocon-neocon myth of the "Clash of Civilizations" rule*. Typically, radicals like peroxyde-blond Geerd Wilders, who enjoys full support from Israeli Jewish fundamentalists as well as from European Christian fundamentalists, wants to ban the burqa... but as a part of a more general ban on Islam !
Such hatemongers complain about "the Islamization of Europe" and the threats to "Western values", but Islam belongs to the West as well as to the East, North, South and Center. Besides, European culture owes a lot of its richness and diversity to Islam, Europe wouldn't be Europe without its citizens who happen to be Muslims, and France wouldn't be France without its citizens who happen to be Muslims.
Furthermore, let us not stress obsolete geographical divisions as moderates from all confessions and from over the world are reaching out to each other.
The second key point in my blogule was precisely that a ban on burqa, provided it were carefully and soundly planned and implemented, would undermine fundamentalism well beyond Muslim communities, and particularily Christian fundamentalism, also on the rise in Europe.

French Muslims overwhelmingly reject fundamentalism, and feel ostracized each time a few extremists deliberately provoque intra- and inter-religious tensions, or openly reject State laws.

Dalil Boubakeur, Rector of the Great Mosque of Paris, denounced the rise of communautarism, radicalization, and fundamentalism in France. But as the President of the French Council of the Muslim Faith, he must also respect all the sensibilities represented in this institution. That's the reason why his critic of the burqa per se sounds rather weak : "wearing the burqa is not a formal answer to a prescription of Islam", and is "foreign to our traditions".

And when he praises Sarkozy, Boubakeur smartly manages to point an accusatory finger at the French Islamist minority : "this well balanced position, exposing a great secular conscience from the President of the Republic, can only fortify the recommandations issued by the Great Mosque of Paris and encourage French citizen of Muslim faith to integrate harmoniously republican values". In other words : if the vast majority of French Muslims applauds, a minority of fundamentalists does refuse the Republic - those are the enemies of both Islam and France.

Boubakeur also issued a clear warning to the President after his speech : "but you have to hope, Insha'Allah, that there won't be any ill-feeling, controversies, nor incidents".

The third key point I raised (the logical counterpoint of the second), was more direct : I really don't trust Nicolas Sarkozy on that one. He is the kind of man to fuel tensions instead of removing them, particularily when he has an opportunity to help fundamentalists and undermine the French secular system. The 2004 ban on religious signs for civil servants or in public schools passed well and calmed things down as expected because it was implemented under Jacques Chirac's watch, a man who, as Bush well knows, makes no compromise with fundamentalist imposteurs.

In France, everybody is fully aware of Sarkozy's reputation as a troublemaker, and his more or less direct promotion of fundamentalism is becoming a less and less hidden agenda.

He was the one who created the Council, thus offering an official tribune to Islamists... and putting outspoken moderates like Boubakeur under constraints. He was the one who, as tensions around the 2004 ban on religious signs were receding, and right before US Elections, dared publish "La Republique, les religions, l'esperance", a provocative essay recommanding the revision of the 1905 law, cornerstone of secularism in France. He was the one who pleased Benedict XVI and other Christian fundamentalists with his "laicite positive" concept (see "N'ayez pas peur"). He was the one who almost condemned French secularism in highly controversial speeches delivered in Latran or Riyadh. He was the one who seeked favors from then Fundamentalist in Chief George W. Bush, palled around with Tom Cruise and tried to remove Scientology from the lists of cults under watch in France...

Yet, if Nicolas Sarkozy obviously pledged allegiance to US theocons a few years ago and has ever since repeatedly attempted to undermine secularism, I don't think he is himself a theocon. More prosaically : hardcore fundamentalists aside, there's a lot of money to make for megachurches willing to open franchises in France... Besides, Sarko's ego is more complex than it seems : this man really loves to please powerful or famous people, wants to be recognized as an equal. He is surrounded by theocons, but also by celebs acting as entry points for theocons.

Now let's put aside this big question mark, and consider French secularism as it is or rather, as it was before Sarkozy. That would be the fourth point missing in my blogule, which was written in French and for a mostly French audience, very much aware of this oddity.

As others may not know, French secularism has proven an efficient yet fragile shield for both democracy and religions against fundamentalism.

People ask "What's wrong with France ?"

Is France intolerant ?
I'd rather say "intolerant to intolerance".

Is France extremist ?
I'd rather say "extremely moderate".

Is France persecuting Muslims ?
I'd rather say "preventing persecution of Muslims, victims of a few fundamentalists who want to cut them from their own country and from their own sound religion".

Regarding religion, the cultural gap couldn't be wider between France and the US : there's a religious persecution syndrom in the US and a religious neutrality syndrom in France, and that explains the way each democracy chooses to defend freedom of religion. Both systems have their pros and cons.

Freedom of belief and religion does mean something in the US. Many founders escaped religious persecutions. On the other hand, fundamentalism is very popular, creationism commonly accepted, and extremist cults are highly visible... In fact, many among the worst enemies of US democracy are US citizens who are tolerated in their own country but would be considered as dangerous extremists anywhere else, and not only in France.

In France, many US preachers would be charged for incitation to hatred, many US cults seriously restricted if not forbidden... and the Creation Museum closed for bold revisionism. Of course, people proudly parading in Nazi uniforms would go straigth to jail. And such ayatollahs as Pat Robertson or Rush Limbaugh would have to tone down a few notches or face the consequences.

Both the US and France have cornerstones for religious neutrality and for separation of church and state, with a common ground dating from the late XVIIIth century, thanks to people like the very francophile Thomas Jefferson :
- the 1789 US Bill of Rights. In particular Establishment Clause in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof")
- the 1789 Declaration of Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In particular : "No one may be disturbed on account of his opinions, even religious ones, as long as the manifestation of such opinions does not interfere with the established Law and Order", "The source of all sovereignty lies essentially in the Nation. No corporate body, no individual may exercise any authority that does not expressly emanate from it", and "Liberty consists in being able to do anything that does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of every man has no bounds other than those that ensure to the other members of society the enjoyment of these same rights. These bounds may be determined only by Law". One could also mention the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights : "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law".
- the 1796-1797 Treaty of Tripoli : "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".
- ..

Separation of church and state is still a raging debate in the US, and fundamentalists are fighting every jurisprudence that secures it. Religion in general is a very big business and partisans of genuine secularism (ie no mention of "God" during inauguration speeches) are a minority.

By contrast, most French are ardent defensors of secularism, and most churches, temples and mosques are poor. Which by the way makes it easier for rich fundamentalist sponsors from overseas.

France put an end to a heated debate on secularism thanks to the December 9, 1905 law on the Separation of the Churches and State, which goes beyond the sentence "the Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion". The Republic's unity was clearly under threat, and mutual hatred bloomed everywhere, with a peak of anti-semitism during the Dreyfus Affair (settled - and in the right direction - soon afterwards, in 1906).

But as History cruelly reminds us, anti-semitism survived in France, and World War II atrocities led to another set of reforms. If French census bureau doesn't collect any data about race, and if French laws strictly forbids databases based on religious beliefs or race***, it's because all humans are considered as one race, but also because the French police collaborated with Nazi occupants and kept files on many citizens, leading to their most tragic fate.

In 1958, France entered its Vth Republic. And the Article 1 of the Preamble of the 1958 Constitution clearly stipulates : "France shall be an indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic. It shall ensure the equality of all citizens before the law, without distinction of origin, race or religion. It shall respect all beliefs" ("It shall be organised on a decentralised basis" being added much later). "Secular" goes with "indivisible", and freedom of religion should not lead to any division.

There is also a cultural issue : in France, religion is considered as something personal, proselytizing as an aggression, and categorizing people as rude. Most French Muslims or French Jews don't want to be singled out as Muslims or Jews. They are true believers, but they want to be simply considered as French citizens. The first thing fundamentalist imams do is to negate Republican laws as a preamble to their own political constitution.

For decades, France enjoyed a relative peace without significant intra- nor inter-religious tensions, fundamentalism remaining well below the radar. But obviously, change has come :

- The first rifts within the Jewish community appeared as a minority took sides in favor of Israeli Jewish fundamentalists or at least in favor of conservative hardliners. The majority of French Jews distance themselves from Israel, and are as sick and tired of the confusion Jew = Tel Aviv Hawks bombing Gaza as Muslims are tired of the confusion Islam = al Qaeda. Yet, there is a French equivalent to an edulcorated AIPAC, but not to J Street. Yet. Regarding the conflict, a majority of French people, beyond Muslims, supports the Palestinian cause, particularily after Arafat gave up terror.

- If wahhabism had a tough time trying to buy its way into France (where moderate Islam has traditionally been sponsored by countries like Morocco), more recent and radical movements leverage on Islamist movements fighting against dictatorship in former French colonies, most notably Algeria. al Qaeda smartly outsourced part of its French operations to GSPC (Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat), now known as "al Qaeda Organization in the Islamic Magreb". Clearly, George W. Bush's crusade in Iraq helped the most radical Islamists gain ground, particularily among the younger generation of Muslims, many of North African origins and living in derelict suburbs, where integration failed most spectacularly. Fundamentalists did their "best" to cut those from their parents, who embraced the Republic and integration.

- Christian fundamentalism had been pretty much silenced since Vatican II, until George W. Bush and Benedict XVI revived it. Recently, the latter even lifted the excommunication of four bishops ordained in 1988 by then Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, the French leader of the very fundamentalist Society of St. Pius X (SSPX). Among them, Richard Williamson, an outspoken Holocaust negationist.

- Over the past few years, hatemongers of all kinds have been multiplying provocations, including profanations of Jewish or Muslim tombs...

Fundamentalists are clearly waging a war on secular exceptions like Turkey and France. Both countries stand at key cultural crossroads, and see their institutional shields against fundamentalism repeatedly tested. Sunni fundamentalists are methodically working on the destruction of secular Turkey (and European Christian Fundamentalists applauding their efforts), but France sits at the top of the agenda for all breeds of radicals : the "Eldest daughter of The Church" lies at the heart of the EU, and boasts its biggest Muslim and Jewish communities.

Fundamentalists mean to destroy France's very foundations : liberty, equality, and fraternity within the "indivisible, secular, democratic and social Republic". And if they don't succeed in amending laws, they try to play "religious freedom" against systems precisely meant to protect, fueling communautarism against integration, forcing people to take sides following their own agenda, to the point that even moderates can sound radical when they talk about them.

Even if French laws and Constitution were clear enough to avoid it, France had to pass a law to specifically ban religious signs in public schools and for civil servants. Islamic headscarves had almost become an obligation in certain areas, where young Muslim women couldn't (and still now can't) go out anymore without a headdress for fear of being violented, and not only verbally. A 2005 poll showed that 77% of French Muslim women wearing headscarf (we're talking the lightest form of garment) don't do it from their own will and wouldn't wear it if given the choice. A Muslim woman founded the association "Ni Putes Ni Soumises" (Neither Whores Nor Slaves) to defend women and particularily Muslim women. This fierce advocate for secularism is now Minister for Urban Policies.

Likewise, these days, France is compelled to position itself for or against burqa. The vast majority of French Muslims are against this import from Islamists, and a bill will probably be needed to specify a ban for burqa and niqab. Even if, unlike headscarves, there are only a few hundred cases in the whole country.

I know that, from a US perspective, such a ban can sound extreme, particularily after Obama's speech in Cairo (see "State of The World Union : The Obama Doctrine")****.

But you have to understand how the vital battle under way within the Muslim world impacts this very special country, where fundamentalism is spreading like fire at the expense of the silent moderate minority (particularily young women). Except for a few Islamist radicals, Muslim organizations are in favor of these laws because they are precisely seeking from the state protection from fundamentalism.

Of course, producing the law remains tricky and legislators have to be very careful : it's about bringing everybody together and certainly not antagonizing. And of course, France must do better at the root of extremism, which thrives on poverty and unfairness. The self proclaimed "country of human rights" does support dictatures overseas and tolerate inequalities and discriminations at home.

As you see, France is a strange country... but its laws are not meant against religion but in favor of a clear separation between politics and religion, to better defend democracy and religion from those who want to destroy both.

stephane mot - blogules 2009


* elsewhere, wearing the burqa can be about both religion and politics (fundamentalism rules), or simply about tradition. But even in the case of tradition, the same political statement exists.

** I know that's unfair because positive meanings have been twisted. Some expressions can be most unfortunate, maybe not as criminal as the "crusade" mentioned by W. after 9/11, but "Western values" has unfortunately become almost a moto for the "Clash of Civilization" imposture.

*** Furthermore, every database featuring individuals should be declared to a specific commission, and every individual has the right to have his record deleted if he or she stops subscribing to a service.

**** On the other hand, what sounds extreme to French people is a democracy where the President swears in on a Bible, finishing by the words "so help me God". It's OK when Obama's speaking, but when Fundamentalist in Chief Dubya speaks, the words resonated very differently. I know that JFK said ("considering the separation of church and state, how is a president justified in using the word 'God' at all? The answer is that the separation of church and state has not denied the political realm a religious dimension"), but I had a dream : Barack Obama has a "Zapatero moment" for his second inauguration (see "So help me Rick Warren").

G20 on Twitter

@barackobama.com : "uh... hem... Look : 120 characters left. Good day : we reached an agreement. Bonus: prevented a fight btwn Sarko and Hu."

@nicolassarkozy.fr : "Good day : I made the headlines and saved the World as usual. Bonus : prevented war btwn US & China."

@hujintao.com.cn : "Good day : saved Macau & HK, purchased the US, cut ties btwn France & Dalai Lama. Bonus: spied UK in the process."

@gordonbrown.co.uk : "Good day : managed to kept my chin up, and my jaw not too low."

@tayyiperdogan.com.tr : "Good day : Shimon Peres wasn't there."

@robertzoellick.us : "Good day : if a Bushite like me gets a hike during this slump, there's still hope for easy money."

@bankimoon.un.org : "Good day : wish we had the same cast at the Security Council."

@abhisitvejjajiva.com.th : "Good day : was right behind Obama on the photo. Bad day : his smiles eclipsed mine."

@taroaso.co.jp : "Good day : wasn't caught sippin' sake."

@dmitrymedvedev.ru : "Good day : I kept those morons busy while Vlady nuked Georgia. Even got an Obama autograph."

@stephenharper.ca : "Bad day : got locked in the johns during the official photo op."

@mbtious.co.kr : "Good day : Kim Jong-il helped me get an itw w. BO."

@lula.com.br : "Good day : was hired as a bodyguard for Brown and the Queen. Kept that French lunatic away from Barack."

@angelamerkel.de : "Good day : was seated next to Oby for dinner, far from Sarko on the final picture."

@dskimf.com : "Good day : I got a budget to purchase flowers for Michelle Obama."

@silvioberlusconi.it : "Good day for plastic surgery : on the pixes, I look younger than Obama and Medvedev combined."

@kevinrudd.com.au : "G'day and seeya."

Sarah Palin and the Segolene Royal Syndrome - The GOP on the same path as the French Socialist Party

The long overdue implosion of the GOP (see "GOP : time to split") has started.

McCainiacs are as dead as their leader. They are the only Americans who'd love to see their country in the position of the underdog, who believe a suicidal planecrasher can fix the damage he himself contributed to cause, and who think a man who pledged allegiance to George W. Bush can't follow the same dangerous path.

Paleocons, as usual, have nowhere to go. They keep roaming the vast plains, grazing aimlessly and wondering which one of them will survive all the others.

Reaganians don't want the party to remain under the dark Bush-Cheney umbrella, and the smartest of them are now supporting Barack Obama, a strong but cool leader with great ambitions for America and the power to change the world.

Reformers, the future of the party, need to look for each other and start building something together. The most difficult task will be to find a leader. Romney lost a big chunk of his credibility courting traditionalists and theocons.

Speaking of which.

Sarah Palin is claiming Bush's thecon fellowship as well as Cheney's neocon legacy, the very combo which ruined and disgraced America. She has the convictions and stamina, but no substance whatsoever.

Palin may become USA's Segolene Royal : an ambitious person more focused on her own self, or rather fascinated by her own Candidate avatar, and unable to lead a massive flock of followers in any consistent direction.

Just like in France, where Nicolas Sarkozy orchestrated in the media the rise of Segolene Royal, her victory at the 2006 PS primaries, and her mediatic come back earlier this year, the confirmation of Sarah Palin as a major figure would prevent her own party from evolving towards a much needed cultural revolution, and strengthen the other party.

It's definitely time to split for the GOP. True Republicans should let this theocon circus spin off and focus on what truly matters : what does this country need and how can they help ?

Right now, the best thing to do is obviously to vote for Obama.

---
Addendum 20081101 - Sarah Palin Got Pranked (Canadian pranksters impersonating Sarkozy and making a fool of her big time) :

Paulson, Sarkozy to Socialist Heaven : "show me the money !"

Europe hastily awarded some jailed Chinese dissident with some prestigious human rights prize before embarking on a plane for Beijing.

There, Jose Manuel Barroso, Nicolas Sarkozy et al went down on their knees and begged the Great Socialist Empire to let some of its wealthy reserves trickle down over the bankrupt Capitalist rest of the World.

From DC, Hank Paulson also asked the IIIrd Millenium's Hyperpower to consider some kind of a Marshall plan ("could you please bail out the US of A ? you know, we don't hate socialists that badly, after all - according to John McCain we're even about to elect one as our President").

In other words, capitalism defies socialist China : "Show me the money".

Wen Jiabao is all ears. And smiles*. "Yes, we can".

Yes, Wen can provide some kind of relief to his new admirers, but he has some fish to fry at home as well. Will he chose to secure China's business model and one fifth of the World's population, to help the richest fifth, or to give a hand to the forgotten rest ? Probably a little bit of each : China will durably strengthen its positions in Asia, Africa, Europe and America, but the trickiest part will be China itself (see "Pervasive China's CIA (Central Investment Agency)").

New series of models will emerge. Not this week-end. Nor November the 15th, when the World Egghead Forum takes place. Nor even during the couple of years to come. But timely (at a geologic time scale at least).

They will differ from XXth century socialism or capitalism (see "This is not a financial crisis"), and China is no exception.

* Actually, I'm wondering how badly Wen's jaws hurt - he was already jubilating during his interview with Zakaria a couple of weeks ago (GPS @ CNN / Newsweek). But not as much as I did, listening to Alan Greenspan swallow just a tiny little bit of his titanic pride.

France heart Obama

In Germany the giga rock concert given to the people of the World, in "Sarkozie" the somber threat addressed to the rulers of Iran. Hope for the doves on one hand, dope for the hawks on the other... in the process Barack Obama even manages to claim the Reagan Democrats heritage.

France's love story with Obama is first the end of a hate story with Bush. We like his balanced views and sound approach of international politics. We like the way he sets people in motion in a positive way. And yes, we wish we had such a charismatic politician making it to the top job from our own minorities.

France is a melting pot. Both a former colonial superpower and the victim of countless invasions, a crossroads where 60 million people live and 75 million people pass by every year, the place where Europe's biggest Muslim minority and Europe's biggest Jewish minority used to live peacefully together until George W. Bush decided to give fundamentalism a worldwide boost.

Race is not an issue in France since raising the issue is almost forbidden : all databases have to be declared to an independent council (the CNIL), and keeping data related to race is illegal. So there are no official statistics regarding minorities, and everyday discrimination cannot be easily exposed. Even the HALDE (a post-2005 authority against discriminations) doesn't mention "race" in its website's keywords : "physical appearance", "genetic characteristics" and "origin" (circumnavigation if I ever saw one).

Everybody knows there is a problem. The only institution reflecting France's diversity remains the national soccer team, and the media and politics are still 99.999% white. Following the 2005 riots, Chirac urged the media to change this and there has been some improvement (anyway from scratch there wasn't any other way than upwards). Sarkozy's Ministry of Justice happens to be a woman with a dual French-Moroccan nationality (Rachida Dati), but there again, a tree doesn't make a forest. Political parties are guilty too : if minority talents are not given any opportunity, France is already dramatically lagging behind most countries when it comes to giving women electable spots.

France has been waiting for a "French Kennedy" for 40 years - to no avail. But a President Obama could certainly help the self proclaimed "country of Human Rights" to be at last true to its values of "liberte, egalite, fraternite".

Between reforms and indulgences - Blair and Sarkozy

I'd like to point out two key moves made by Tony Blair during his life. Two decisive acts of allegiance that may well explain a third one ; the most famous - allegiance to Bush and his suicidal crusade in Iraq. These two events didn't happen during his PM mandates but set a perfect frame around them :

- the first act of allegiance ? before taking power, and actually in order to take it : Blair made a pact with a curious devil named Ruppert Murdoch

- the second act of allegiance ? not long after leaving power : Blair clinched a deal with the most controversial Pope since WWII, to embrace the ultraconservative Roman Catholicism Benedict XVI dreams of restoring fundamentalism

As far as economy is concerned, Blair and Murdoch symbolise reforms and conservatism, but what strikes me most about Blair is the gap between his very pragmatic sense of reform and his very utopic mysticism... and Murdoch is not only obsessed by money but by the success of candidates with a messianic touch. This Citizen Kane didn't succeed with Pat Robertson in the late 80s, but earned his reputation of serial kingmaker with Tony and Dubya.

You want to keep an eye on Nicolas Sarkozy, a great admirer of Tony Blair the Reformer and Murdoch the Entrepreneur, a great friend of George W. Bush the Leader, a great echo to Ratzinger's theories about genetic determination or Europe's Christian heritage...

Can't buy me love

The US sponsors peace process in the Middle East : 30 billions for Israel and 12 for Egypt. The sums are already allocated for weapons made by Uncle Sam. The White House's PR artists found that system more PC than their usual sale pitch ("we widened the Federal deficit by giving away 42 more billions to US death industries"). Saudi Arabia and other Arab countries added 20 billions to the pool in order to get the same Weapons of Mass Destructions as their neighbors.

France sponsors environmental policies in Africa : Nicolas Sarkozy helps Libya get drinkable water and Gabon restore its forests. The Elysee Palace's PR artists preferred that version to their usual sale pitch ("we sold a nuclear plant to Muammar al-Qaddafi and we gave 50 millions to Omar Bongo"). To make good measure, France will generously allow Libyans to purchase 100 millions worth of weapons Made In France.

Diplomats, no. Deep loot mats, si.

Sarko wins - White blogule to reforms

France eventually said yes to something. After saying no to extreme right in 2002 and no to Europe in 2005, the country decided to embrace reforms. In order to implement his ambitious program, Nicolas Sarkozy must now get a clear majority at the National Assembly. And these legislative elections will be a very interesting moment in French politics.
As early as next thursday, Francois Bayrou will know whether his new Democratic Movement can keep the bulk of today's UDF MPs, who supported Sarkozy and refused to join the opposition.
As early as yesterday night, a surrealistic replay of the PS primaries started. Segolene Royal, as expected, refused to admit her own failure and the failure of ideological indecisiveness, claimed the leadership of the "anything but Sarko" movement. Laurent Fabius, as expected, denounced her solo campaign and called for unity with the left of the left. Dominique Strauss-Kahn, as expected, denounced the candidate's hollowness and the party's refusal to reform itself, to clarify its vision and ideology, calling for a reform towards a modern social democracy.
As early as yesterday night too, extreme left revolutionary groups tested the authorities, provoking minor episodes of violence in some major cities. Olivier Besancenot intends to take the street and bar all reforms.
As early as yesterday afternoon, Jean-Marie Le Pen died politically. Sarkozy shot him badly before the first round, leading a great chunk of his voters back to the republic, and the old extremist leader shot himself before the second round, calling his voters for a massive abstention but witnessing the highest turnout in recent history.
Meanwhile, Sarko rises above the snake nest and takes a few days off to abandon his candidate's skin. He already switched to a presidential posture in a rather brilliant speech. He talked to the world (to the notable exceptions of the Middle East and Asia) and mentioned respect. I'll keep an eye on his way of respecting the separation of powers (executive-legislative, executive-judicial, executive-media, temporal-intemporal...).

Masks off - red blogule to Segolene Royal's imposture

Let us consider my fellow French citizens as junkies, eager to give up their illusions but still hooked to them and asking candidates for yet another fix...
Segolene Royal comes to them and tells them : "I'm listening to what you say. I will give you a dose even bigger than the one you're dreaming of. You will feel good today and tomorrow will look brighter - actually, I'm sure things will get better for you.
Nicolas Sarkozy tells the French : "I'm really listening to what you say, and I understand that what you mean is not give me more but get me out of here. I won't push you down any further, I will help you up.
The sales pitch is less sexy but a little bit more responsible.

As you noticed earlier in this excuse for a blog, I don't precisely like Mr Sarkozy. But I know he is the only one who can put the country back on track. And I know he is now under the strict control and scrutiny of the UMP's centrist majority, the very people who will actually do the job with him, but people who won't stay with him if he happens to deviate from the healthy line (ie Sarko confirmed several times he won't touch to France's secularism).

I seriously considered voting for Bayrou one year ago. Back then, I was sure he had a chance, the same way I knew back in 1996 Blair could win the following year, to the great surprise of my British friends. But the man proved once again to be a disapointment ; a good man but a loner, not a leader. His surrealistic "debate" with Royal confirmed my worries : this man of dialogue drowned in Sego's autistic monologue.

But last Tuesday, Royal eventually met someone who exposed her sideral vacuity. I often compare her to Dubya : both are impostors and fake compassionate conservatists, but at least Bush is a good actor and he knows both the role he has to play and the man he truly is. Sego doesn't even know who nor what she is. She is actually running away from this confrontation and discovered the way of persuasing herself she exists in a selfpersuasive mantra technique : she routinely picks up things that sound nice everywhere and adds them to her speech, which grows into something as huge as implausible and inconsistent, and when someone says a trifle loud something looks a trifle too much she withdraws it. No one stopped her during the Socialist Party's primaries, no one stopped her during the campaign, and someone eventually said "get real", someone eventually imposed her first actual debate.
Even then, Sego refused any contradiction (no, not true, you're lying), she denied the right to answer (you don't have the right to answer, no). But Sarko kept focusing on the content while Sego sticked to the appearence, putting all her weight in one attack carefully planed. Sarko already knew Sego would attack because she warned her staff before. The question was when. She knew Le Petit Nicolas would raise the issue of the disabled children (he actually delivered the very same words a couple of days earlier in a prime time interview), and her strategy was to strike at this precise moment. She did a pretty good job in pretending to choke on what he said as if it were the first time she heard it, and she convinced many observers of her courage and sincerity. But she also lost many sympathisers who considered her as... sympathetic (66% of voters before the debate, 53% after - Opinionway poll). And women are not fooled : they don't like her and prefer to vote for Sarko (49% vs 38% - TNS Sofres barometer).
Masks are off and I do hope French citizens will vote with more discernment in 2007 than US citizens in 2004.

Red blogule to French oldcons, neocons and cons in general

The French are switching from a Left / Right to a Conservative / Progressive political rift. The defining moment was the vote for the European Constitution, with a significant collateral damage : the end of the Socialist Party (PS) as we've known it since Francois Mitterrand claimed it a couple of decades ago.
Reformers from the PS have more in common with reformers from the UMP than with their fellow party members stuck somewhere in the middle of the XIXth Century. Sarkozy and fellow reformers have successfuly sidelined traditional conservatives within their own ranks - a minority of harmless old farts snoring all day long at the Senate.
I'm sure the French economy would perform well with Nicolas Sarkozy, but I'm rather scared by his attacks on secular legislations and his ability to fuel radicalism and fundamentalism. I don't quite like the idea of this man enjoying the support of both US and Israeli fundamentalists and neocons, and even the presence of a Karl Rove wannabe on his side, Brice Hortefeux.
I'd rather see a more moderate kind of reformer rule the country. Francois Bayrou (UDF) has a clear opening since Dominique Strauss-Kahn lost the PS primaries vs Segolene Royal. Should he reach the second round of these elections, he would crush Royal and could even be a problem for Sarkozy (if socialist voters prefer barring Sarko to abstention).
Segolene Royal is not a moderate reformer. She is neither conservative nor reformist. She is an ambitious person used to follow charismatic leaders and has some trouble turning into a charismatic leader radiating with her own views. She keeps putting all opinions at the same level and refusing to take any clear position. As expected and despite a massive victory in the socialist primaries (60%), Royal proved unable to get full support from her own party. A couple of days ago, a group of VIMs from the left (Very Important Women) were considering a petition to call for her withdrawal from the presidential race - just to make sure this wouldn't be interpreted as yet another proof of France's reactionnary machismo (anytime Royal is under attack, she bites with the issue back).
Bayrou may be closing the gap, Royal is still far ahead of the centrist candidate and she still has a large and motivated core of supporters. But she flunked last week-end's exam, introducing a program that didn't really prove disruptive... but for the national budget. A copycat of Mitterrand's 1981 program, which led that man to the top job but the country to the bottom : a massive budget deficit, a big financial crisis and a total loss of international competitivity at a critical moment. Eric Besson, the man in charge of the financial side of Royal program, timely decided to quit after a clash with Francois Holland, secretary general of the PS and Sego's longtime compagnon.
Right now, Sarkozy enjoys a comfortable lead in the polls. But he has also been trapped into a lousy campaign where everybody promises everything to everyone. Even Bayrou, the apostle of budget orthodoxy, claims a 20 billion Euros program.
Ten years ago, France was ahead of Germany in its reforms. But the PM, Alain Juppe, went too far too quick, and Chirac (not so wisely advised by Villepin) decided to dissolve the assembly. The PS won the 1997 elections and Lionel Jospin surfed on the internet bubble years to post nice growth rates, but also to reform the country the wrong way (more spendings and the mother of all mistakes ; the 35-hour Week). Chirac won again in 2002 but limited new reforms to cautious steps when his neighbor Gerhard Schroeder would take all the risks. Schroeder lost to Merkel but Germany is now much fitter than France to face future challenges.
Here's the new deal for France : an economic breakdown with Segolene Royal, a political gamble with Nicolas Sarkozy. Should Francois Bayrou win next May, he would have the opportunity to form a new party with socialist and UMP moderate reformers. Instead of going down by turning right or left, France must try to go and grow up.

White blogule to OH Se-hoon - swift boats across the Hangang

LEE Myung-bak may or may not become South Korea's next president. Like Sarkozy, he could be leading in the polls too clearly too early. Actually, the man who changed the face of the Capital city (Bus Rapid Transit system, restored Cheonggyecheon, Seoul Sup...) always seems in a hurry and doesn't like to waste time. For a start, he never took the time to change his own face. Plus he was twice convicted for starting an election campaign too early.
But swiftness is certainly not a handicap in Korea. After all, LEE's predecessor did become Korea's head of state in a hurry : GOH Gun assumed ROH Moo-hyun's interim during his short 2004 impeachment transition.
Still, LEE's successor could very well become the "next-former-mayor-of-Seoul president". It's just that 2007 looks a little bit too early for OH Se-hoon, who isn't even of the "former" kind since he only took the mayoral charge last summer. At least, this good looking politician won't have to change his face to seduce the voters.
Yesterday, OH decided to stop the pre-electoral stalemate on real estate issues, the most important topic in a country that doesn't seem to realize North Korea is about to collapse in a meltdown if not nuclear, at least economically ten times more destructive than Albania's*.
Anyway... ROH Moo-hyun's Government cannot go as far as it would like against real estate speculation because the opposition doesn't want it to succeed before this year's elections... the said opposition including many members of the "ruling" Uri party. OH Se-hoon is a member of the Grand National Party but wants to be remembered as a man who reaches for the good of the majority : he didn't wait for national guidelines to set tougher rules on new developments. A small move but a wise and a timely one.
Nowadays, some short sighted Gangnam investors see LEE Myung-bak as their only hope of postponing the inevitable burst of Seoul's real estate bubble. The wisest and swiftest among them are becoming OH Se-hoon's best supporters... with the hope of making in Gangbuk for their future losses in Gangnam : they have already moved their assets north of the Han river, flocking to such areas as Nowon-gu like rats before the shipwreck.


* once again : instead of benchmarking Germany for their reunification scenarios, Koreans would be inspired to remember what happened to Albania after the collapse of Enver Hoxha's regime.

Rewriting history (reloaded) - IHT Letters To The Editor

Praise the International Herald Tribune. First for publishing another blogule of mine (even if slightly edited* to fit a wider audience than this utterly incorrect blog), second for giving it a title I've been mantrazing for a few years.

Actually, I mentioned "Rewriting History" in one of the few blogules published by "Le Figaro" before Sarkozy became Editor in Chief. Back then, I noticed the irony in the way Dubya compared himself to Roosevelt and Churchill ("Reecriture de l'Histoire - GW Bush le nouveau FDR ?" - 20040607).

I guess "rewriting history" could be considered today's international pastime on steroids.

Anyway... For those who missed my latest ranting on Abe** and/or reached their newstands to late, here is the letter as published in today's IHT*** :

Rewriting History
Your Dec. 16 edition delivered two rather disheartening insights on the way history is being taught.
In "Confronting Holocaust denial" (Views), Ayaan Ali Hirsi reveals how the Holocaust is not only absent from textbooks in many Muslim countries but also still considered a great idea by many young people.
In the news report "Japan passes measure for patriotic education," an education reform is not only meant to keep the Japanese people in the dark regarding the terrible war crimes committed during Hirohito's reign, but also to revive ultranationalism.
Perhaps worst of all: None of this comes as a surprise. President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is on a permanent revisionist road show, while Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan has already declared his nationalist views.
I wonder what tomorrow's textbooks will tell the next generations about our time? In this sick medieval revival, even the president of the United States and the pope want to replace science and reason by an ultraconservative caricature of religion.

* let's say I elaborated a bit on "declared his nationalist views"

** see "Red blogule to Shinzo Abe - another revisionist leader" (20060926), or the unedited blog spill in French preceding my letter to the IHT : "Blogule rouge a Shinzo Abe - l'Empire contre attaque" (20061216)

*** see iht.com/articles/2006/12/19/news/edlet.php (20061220)

White blogule to France's wake up call

You keep asking me what's going wrong with France these days, especially after my critics on Amerika's social collapse (ie "This is America" or "Quagmires and bayous").
My answer is : "about everything". The poor are getting poorer, the masses are getting poor and the wealthy have already left the country. The IMF can praise the government's ability to perform reforms through consensus, the country needs to go further and quicklier.
First, "social" investments are often diverted / perverted and France is paying for the so called "social peace" : I give favors to social activists in order to buy stability, but I transform them into new elites disconnected from their bases and only devoted to the protection of their own interests. The counterproductivity of this tradition of compromises becomes all the more evident than growth times are over.
Second, ethnical / racial "égalité" is a myth. The French national soccer team became the "black blanc beur" alibi for a nation of tele-spectators / non-actors. Decision makers and opinion leaders must reflect the country's diversity.
Third, the Republic kept clinging to an ideal image of itself without actually taking care of itself. It must revive its own dynamics and instead of protecting yesterday's, we must unleash the locomotives of tomorrow. Education remains to be truly reformed (beyond the content, the mindframes and inerties).
The solutions lie in both a "bottom up" and "top down" approach. Bottom up : voting, getting involved in the community beyond one's own existing circles, marketing a positive peer-pressure at the individual as well as the entrepreneurial level (I'm doing something, how about you ?). Top down : transfering investments in the socially productive hands and giving back the ability to spend to the doers and makers : saving the budget by replacing only half of the new pensionners in the civil sector, luring back the wealthy - even if unethically at the start, ie through amnisty (but with a reform of heritage in favor of productive investments and socially efficient foundations).
This crisis could prove to be the opportunity to wake the country up and to focus the energies on the right priorities.
The only positive output of this "annus horribilis" (no to Europe, no to Paris 2012, no to social exclusion...) is the existence of a genuine debate. At very last, the key issues are outspoken. To the point one could talk about a 1968 revival, with still the same idealists at one extreme and cynists at the other one, but a stronger and more mature mainstream in-between.
Let's hope France will go for the structural change instead of Sarkozy's radical reformism. One year from now, I hope we can measure the evolution in the good (if not right) direction.