Openness, 2007 version
François Bayrou dreamed of it, Nicolas Sarkozy did it. In the name of national unity he opened up his government to men and women from the centre and the left, he adopted Valéry Giscard d’Estaing’s policy of giving the opposition a real status and, not without malice, offered positions to leading lights from the Socialist Party. The public can but rejoice that such leading figures as Bernard Kouchner and Martin Hirsch are finally being given responsibilities worthy of their talents. But what could be the real political implications of this openness?
Despite appearances, and vocabulary, it is far from the kind of ‘openness’ that François Mitterrand pursued in 1988. That was more like a genuine broadening of political alliances. At the time, the entry into Michel Rocard’s government of several ministers hailing from all parts of the UDF was accompanied by a split in the UDF parliamentary group. Meanwhile centrists formed their own group around Pierre Méhaignerie, Jacques Barrot, Bernard Bosson and, in particular, the young François Bayrou. As a result, Michel Rocard managed to get his texts adopted for a period of three years, sometimes with the support of the Communist Party, sometimes with that of the centrists; he had well and truly built a real alternative majority. Thanks to this open approach, he enjoyed unequalled popularity for three years… while postponing the most difficult reforms, such as pensions, indefinitely.
Today things are quite different. Nicolas Sarkozy has called on individuals who do not trail anyone else in their wake. Nor is the situation in parliament the same: the parliamentary socialist group has not become divided – nor does the UMP need that since it has a large majority of its own. Nor is the public opinion situation the same: unlike their UMP and centrist colleagues, none of the ministers from the left was faced with universal suffrage this spring. Will any left-wing voter vote for a right-wing municipal list next year because of Nicolas Sarkozy’s support for Dominique Strauss-Kahn as a candidate for head of the IMF? Obviously not.
The ‘openness’ that came in summer 2007 is of a quite different kind. It is directed not at political parties but at public opinion. What is ‘opening’ is quite simply a new chapter in French politics.
Today openness means that the political debate has finally got its breath back. Marx is dead, at last! As are Mao and Trotsky and the whole frighteningly effective dogmatism to which French intellectuals, media and policies had succumbed for a good 30 years longer than other European countries. The old socialism had long since lost the battle with reality, but in France it had won the moral victory: each side apologised for not being more ‘left’ and even Jacques Chirac felt obliged to say that liberalism was as great an evil as communism! The 35-hour week was ineffectual, if not counterproductive, but it was moral. Like the minimum wage of EUR 1 500, or the mass regularisation of the status of the ‘sans papiers’, foreigners without papers. Nicolas Sarkozy swept all that aside: in politics what counts is not the doctrine of good intentions – the road to hell is always paved with them – but results. And the result is that the Communist Party’s proletarian masses have dwindled to 3%, and the high priest of anti-globalisation, the darling of the media, José Bové, has been cut down to 1%, like any blade of GMO corn. So, having failed to come to terms with reality in time, the most modern socialist leaders are converting to realism, supporting the man who won the day.
Because French policy is once again tackling real issues rather than ideological prejudices, the French mobilised en masse, with an 85% turnout at the presidential election! That vote was an expression of hope. Meanwhile, reflecting its despair and exasperation at the failure of its policies, the National Front all at once collapsed, putting an end to that other French anomaly – a strong far right.
Openness in 2007 means opening the door to a new class of leaders, more representative of the reality of French society, with as many women as men, including in the Ministries of Finance and the Interior, a magistrate of Maghreb origin in charge of justice, a young woman of Senegalese origin to defend human rights in the world and the President of the Emmaus movement and successor of Abbé Pierre to combat large-scale poverty.
Openness also means freedom of action. Armed with popular support, and with no fear of a ‘third social ballot’, the very day after his election the President embarked on all the promised reforms at once. Not by shutting himself up in his palace and his certainties, but by receiving all the unions before taking up his duties and bringing the German Chancellor along to share a meal with workers in the Toulouse Airbus canteen.
Finally, openness means that France has finally regained confidence in itself, in Europe, in the world and, generally, in its time. The ‘simplified treaty’ will give Europe the best of what the draft Constitution contained. France no longer regards globalisation, climate change, tensions regarding raw materials, the emergence of large third-world countries, as relentless threats but as the great adventure of our times, to be met with greater political audacity, greater scientific progress, greater solidarity at global level.
No doubt, like most ‘states of grace’ this one will not last forever. But a different France will emerge from it. Right? Left?
Open.
Alain Lamassoure, 23 July 2007