Oui Are For Sarko

France needs change, and needs it desperately. Thankfully, it seems that the French people have got the message: 84 percent of eligible voters went to the polls on Apr. 22 (a historically high number, putting the U.S.’s 55.3 percent turnout rate in the 2004 presidential election to shame) for the first round of voting in the country’s presidential election.

This Sunday, another large turnout is expected for the run-off election as the French choose between the two remaining candidates—Nicolas Sarkozy of the right-of-center Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) party and the Socialist Party’s Ségolène Royal. Although we welcome the overwhelming signs of democratic strength in France, only one vote will move the country toward far-reaching reforms that La République requires—a vote for Nicolas Sarkozy.

Over the past 26 years, France has been led by two presidents, François Mitterand and Jacques Chirac, who came from opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, but who shared an inability to address the profound identity crisis that France has been undergoing. By now, French voters seem to recognize that without a major course correction, the country has little to look forward to other than growing social unrest and long-term economic decline.

In the first round of voting, the French chose mainstream candidates whose parties could actually enact legislation in the Assemblée nationale; fringe right and left candidates garnered especially low percentages—10 candidates managed merely a combined 24 percent. Tellingly, Jean-Marie Le Pen, the far-right candidate of the Front National who made it to the second round in 2002, received the smallest share of votes he has received in any presidential election since 1974.

Yet, as much as they seem to recognize that they are at a historical cross-roads, the French seem unable to decide between the economic liberalization proposed by Sarkozy (who, although “right of center” in France, is further left than most Democrats in America) and the more traditional social welfare agenda of Royal. Although “Sarko” has led every poll in recent months, he has ceded four percentage points in the last week to Royal, who is ruthlessly exploiting anxiety about economic reform and Sarkozy’s personality, riding a “Tout Sauf Sarkozy” (“Anything But Sarko”) movement that may carry the day.

Royal, herself, is a curious mix of charisma and seeming amateurism. She may ultimately be a more attractive personality than the sometimes abrasive Sarkozy, but that is beside the point. The prospect of Royal in l’Elysée—the Parisian residence of the French president—portends a grim economic and social future for France. Whatever her personal qualities, Royal simply will not break radically enough with the failing French status quo.

Although the dirigiste economic model has produced great results in terms of national healthcare, atomic energy, and welfare benefits since the heyday of Charles de Gaulle, this model is seriously outdated in the age of globalization and in the context of France’s (and Europe’s) demographic decline. France has stagnated: It has the second-lowest growth rate in the European Union (EU), one of the world’s most regulated job markets, spiraling government debt, and a work week that has been limited to 35 hours since 1999.

Up to now, the stagnation has been greatly affected by the French population’s profound resistance to change, which has left democratically elected politicians little room to maneuver. Remarkably, this resistance is particularly concentrated in the French youth.

Last year, when Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin proposed a very modest reform to address the 21.5 percent youth unemployment rate that would have given young employees slightly less job security, widespread student street demonstrations caused the reform bill to be withdrawn. The obvious conclusion drawn from this experience by French politicians was that any further moves toward reform would have to be deferred until the Presidential election and perhaps a fresh round of parliamentary elections. (Sarkozy himself, seeing a chance to undermine his rival, Villepin, opposed the reform.) As for the French youth, a recent poll shows that a majority of them aspire to posts in the government bureaucracy, with their job security and pensions, rather than the private sector where France’s future will ultimately have to be forged.

The situation is even more alarming on a social level, as unemployment rates have spiraled out of control in the poor and predominantly Muslim suburbs of Paris (the banlieues), reaching as high as 50 percent for those aged 18 to 26. The dramatic differences in employment and opportunity between the banlieues and the rest of France suggest that France’s traditional assimilationist approach toward its immigrant population has failed. Even after two or three generations in France, and despite the state’s supposed blindness to race, opportunities for immigrants and their offspring seem to be getting worse rather than better.

So what does Royal propose? Beyond vague promises of gradual reform of the welfare system, she talks of government-guaranteed starter jobs, proposes to increase the minimum monthly salary by 20 percent to 1500 euros, and insists she will leave the controversial 35-hour week untouched. These proposals are fiscally irresponsible and are not calculated to increase private employment or the integration of minorities into the workforce. Royal is much more popular in the banlieues than the law-and-order immigration skeptic, Sarkozy, who has an unfortunate—and perhaps calculated—weakness for rhetoric with a racist edge. But Royal seems stuck in an antiquated and romantic socialism that offers minorities politically correct rhetoric in lieu of the prospect of genuine opportunity.

Sarkozy, by contrast, proposes sweeping reforms, such as making every working hour after 35 tax-exempt, reducing income taxes by as much as 10 percent, and, through drastic spending reductions, reducing the national debt from 66 to 60 percent of GDP. In a reversal of roles that an American would find baffling, the so-called “right-wing” Sarkozy proposes to introduce desperately needed affirmative action programs to France (hitherto unknown in this welfare state) while the “socialist” Royal vigorously opposes them. Sarkozy’s opponents claim that his platform is “brutal” and that it will rend the French social fabric. Depressingly, French youth (especially those in the banlieues who would particularly gain from his fresh approach), seem the most susceptible to these arguments and are the most passionately aroused by the “Tout Sauf Sarkozy” movement.

Sarko’s platform would be a “rupture” (his signature word) from France’s current economic and social model, but a rupture is required if the country is going to reverse its economic and social decline. Though some of his rhetoric has needlessly offended the very people he is most likely to help, Sarkozy is closer to Blair than to Thatcher and is the candidate making serious proposals to create employment and enhance France’s place in the global economy.

We are for Sarko. Hopefully he is France’s choice, too.



Pierpaolo Barbieri ’09, a Crimson associate editorial chair, is a history concentrator in Eliot House. Clay A. Dumas ’10, a Crimson editorial editor, lives in Holworthy Hall.