SO NICOLAS SARKOZY is definitively retiring from political life. That, at least, is what he told his campaign team at the Elysée Palace yesterday. My sense is that no politician is ever truly finished in France (just look at the names being cited for ministerial jobs under President François Hollande). But assuming he means it, what will the history books say about him?
As I said briefly in a piece for this week's issue, it is in many ways extraordinary that Mr Sarkozy has come to such an end, making history as only the second president, after Valéry Giscard d'Estaing, to fail to win a re-election bid. Not that he failed to accept defeat gracefully. He made a dignified, if strained, speech on Sunday evening, calling on Mr Hollande to be “respected”, and wishing him luck.
But the phrase that keeps coming to my mind after Mr Sarkozy's defeat is: what a waste. He has become such an object of hate during this campaign that the French seem to have forgotten why they ever elected him.
Yet this was a man who had so much going for him in 2007. He was swept to office with 53% of the vote, more than Mr Hollande achieved on Sunday. After 12 torpid years under Jacques Chirac, he brought a breath of fresh air and (relative) youthfulness to the job. He was in many ways profoundly anti-conservative, and all the more appealing because of it.
With his unusual surname and immigrant origins, he also had something of the outsider about him—even though he was brought up in posh Neuilly, the suburb of Paris where he first became mayor.
He didn't talk like other politicians. He hadn't been groomed at ENA to speak in incomprehensible code, which the French call la langue de bois. He said things that the rest of the clubby political class didn't dare to: that the French should work more, or stop blaming America for everything, or promote members of ethnic minorities to proper jobs, not just put them in charge of music and sport.
In office he was energetic, hard-working and bold. A whirlwind in perpetual motion, some of his reforms—notably giving universities autonomy, raising the retirement age, cutting red tape for entrepreneurs, rationalising the regional network of courts—have been solid. His international record, despite some erratic moments, has kept France's voice heard on the world stage. Nor can he alone be blamed for the jump in unemployment and debt on his watch as the financial crisis struck.
The tragedy of the Sarkozy presidency, however, is that he seems in the end to have been his own worst enemy. He fired off in so many directions that it left the French confused, dizzy and exhausted. He seemed unable to channel his energy in a consistent direction. Utterly convinced by everything he did, he then became the passionate advocate for exactly the opposite.
So the tax-cutting candidate ended up increasing the overall tax take in the economy. The politician who never stopped criticising the 35-hour week left it on the statute books. The president who wanted to free the French from their complex about wealth and success ended up regarded as a cliquey “president of the rich”. The leader who promised to promote a French Condoleezza Rice finished his term with no ethnic-minority ministers in any senior government positions—and turned to toxic talk about “too many immigrants” in an unapologetic chase for the far-right vote at the end of his presidential campaign.
Through all of this, Mr Sarkozy seemed unable to control his own impulses, whether it was to show off his new girlfriend (Carla Bruni), or humiliate another leader in public (Silvio Berlusconi), or simply manage his temper (cursing at a passer-by at an agricultural fair). If his political results had been more impressive, the French might have forgiven him these foibles. They weren't, so they didn't.
His is a tale of showmanship over application, of haste over deliberation, of transparency over reserve. Yasmina Reza, the French playwright, put it well when she wrote of Mr Sarkozy's restless desire to “combat the slippage of time”. But this time he could not stop the clock. The French did not so much vote for Mr Hollande as against Mr Sarkozy. He ended up defeating himself. What a waste.



Readers' comments
The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
Sort:
Enjoying the French satire in French, and standards double - nope, not a hint to delete.
This election was so interesting to me. I read once Sarkozy described as a bold and unashamed virtuoso of political combat. This satire The Conquest tells it all: http://ow.ly/aPG5a
The Economist and Sarkozy
or the end of a love storie...
Nicolas Sarkozy has been the best french president ever!
What if DSK had run instead of Hollande, as was originally planned? Would Sarkozy have won against the exposed DSK? I wonder!
Should DSK have defeated Hollande for the Socialist nomination that occurred in Oct 2011, Sarkozy would have won easily eventually. Another "dossier" was in the pipe to blow up DSK's candidacy in the midst of the campaign.
"in the pipe to blow"
naughty, naughty
Re Sarkozy is it "adieu" or "au revoir"? After all, that other immigrant leader of France also attempted a comeback (until he met his Waterloo)!
yes, he'll replace Van Rompuy
'Strikes are more visible in France because of the way they are planned and implemented. But they lose less workdays per year than in Nordic countries, for example. I'd say this maximises their efficiency and therefore further reduces the need for striking. Please remember that striking is costly for the workers, and usually comes from being cornered with no dialogue left open.' [Dominique II]
These are the opinions of the ‘Guardian’s’ French and leftist… correction, lefty correspondent called Angelique Chrisafis, dated 24-3-11:
‘To some, the defining image of France is a striking railway worker with a red flag holding the nation to ransom as planes are grounded, schools shut and desperate commuters sleep under their desks because there are no trains. / Nicolas Sarkozy begs to differ. He claims to have broken the power of strikes. […]
‘The cult of the strike – and, more important, the street demonstration – remains a crucial part of political life in France. / With an all-powerful president and a weak parliament, many see marches as the only way to make their voice heard. Although France remains one of the most strike-prone nations, in recent years it has been topped by Canada and South Africa. Historically, it is the most strike-happy country in Europe, losing on average 132 days per 1,000 workers due to strikes between 2005 and 2009.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/24/debunking-stereotypes-french...
you should have copied the comments too !
too bad that screaming Brits are stuck into their Waggon under the channel
‘you should have copied the comments too !’ [Marie.Claude]
Here’s Angelique Chrisafis’ reply to liberalexpat:
‘The unusual ranking of Denmark ahead of France in working days lost to strikes from 2005 - 2009 was skewed by the Danish official strike in 2008 — a rarity. When academics took that out of the equation, Denmark consistently came far behind France. / Union membership in France is indeed lower than many think. / Marseille might argue about where strikes hit hardest.’
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/24/debunking-stereotypes-french...
What is often overlooked is the level of trade-union membership is 7% of the work-force and these are mainly the lucky occupants of government and peri-government jobs for life. The Splendid French Revolutionary Tradition as shown in the Splendid Street Demo Carnival Theatre is, frankly, bogus. And an insult to the authentic working-class.
hmm, but there was this unfortunate 2008 strike !
oh and you were compaining to be stopped at the Ouistreham motorway out by our angry Routiers, not only Marseille dockers strike, our paysans, doctors... do too, they who can't stay out long !
The two of us have provided so many reasons why Nicolas Sarkozy could have been the Redeemer and Saviour of France if only he'd had real oompf as well as a overactive, overready tongue.
He'll be missed ... in France.
Just give Hollande a year to show how indecisive he is ... and the French will be comparing him (negatively) to Sarkozy.
There is not much to like personably about Sarkozy and his nervous way of taking initiative. But he does take initiative, rather than let a problem fester.
And we (voters) forget all too often that the contest for the leadership of a nation is NEVER a Beauty Contest. At the heart of the matter is competence and experience, as demonstrated previously in other functions.
For which Hollande shows no track-record worth mentioning. He's never had a ministerial job. The best he's done is as "governor" of a Region in France. Like all other regions, it was in the red for the entire length of his tenure in office.
Like most Socialists, he does not know how to balance a budget - and the Golden Rule (balanced budgets) has already been decided (in European negotiations) to be implemented into national legislation.
Hollande is thus between a rock and a hard-place budget-wise.
France has not demonstrated an budget surplus in 35 years and not had a balanced-budget in 25 years - whether the Right or Left has been in power. So, learning how to balance a budget without going hat-in-hand to the bankers is a "New Act" for most European leadership.
And it is about time, rather than perpetually kicking the can down the road as a political expedience. Balancing a national budget requires some difficult choices, meaning some budgets are maintained whilst others are cut. Which translates directly into job-redundancy.
Some call that "austerity" - others "reality". Reality is knocking at the door ...
Socialists are inept, therefore Hollande is inept; Hollande is inept, therefore Socialism is inept.
That kind of logic killed Sarkozy. Please go on using it.
Ineptness, in the present circumstance (as I explained), of political governance is this:
* France has not had a budget surplus in 35 years.
* France has not had a budget-balanced in 25 years.
* Politicians (on both the Left and Right) have been employing a political expediency by borrowing heavily in order to maintain profligate spending - because it gets them re-elected.
* To such a point that they have come to borrowing in order to pay debt-maintenance, which is tantamount to "rolling over the debt" and not paying it down.
* Which would require the use of tax-revenues that they preferred to spend elsewhere ...
* A family that does this goes bankrupt.
* A nation that does this simply carries on ... until a major economic crisis no longer allows them the tax-revenues to "spend elsewhere". Whereupon it changes leadership in the erroneous belief that new faces bring new solutions. It takes more than jut a new face.
The EuroZone is at the end of a road, where it finds itself at a precipice. What is it to do?
What are the Socialist solutions. More debt-spending - after all the debt is the banker's problem. Which is ingrained myopia.
The more the bank is employed to support National Debt, the more it must put into reserves and the less it has to offer consumers for credit-spending (which is the motor of a modern-day economy).
'Nuff said ... ?
Chi sene frega of a budget surplus, we see where it conducts nowadays
uh sorry the Jospin government managed to have a balanced budget
and I recall you that french debt before 2008 was 64%
whereas the Brits?, the US?, the Italians'? the Japanese?, the Germans?....
a state budget isn't a family budget (whereas you can only count on a salary), state budgets get balanced by debt vs inflation, where you still can count on jobs creation, on VAT taxes on exportations and or on consumerism...
Judging Socialists by the Right's conduct is soo enlightening. The right has been at the helm for all those debt-riding years.
Hollande is every bit as committed as Sarkozy to roll back debt and reach a balanced budget; his timeplan is all of ONE year longer, because HE expects to respect it.
Your side squeals when taxes are raised, ours squeals when jobs are slashed; it all depends on which is the more adequate adjustment variable, profits or livelihoods; budget balancing is a very noisy process.
Expect France to cut down sharply on its expenditures as a faithful NATO foot soldier/low-cost Blackwater, for which it receives nothing but snotty snubs and kicks in the ribs anyway. Virtuous Germany enjoyed a free ride on France and Britain's defence costs... let's be virtuous too!
{a state budget isn't a family budget (whereas you can only count on a salary), state budgets get balanced by debt vs inflation, where you still can count on jobs creation, on VAT taxes on exportations and or on consumerism.}
Thank you. I could not think of a more wildly imaginative excuse for profligate spending had I put a lifetime of effort to the task.
You in line for Ministre de l'Economie in the new government, perchance? You certainly appear to have all the necessary qualifications.
NB: Naming other countries that are in more Deep Debt Doodoo than France is No Excuse Whatsover for justifying one's own "merde".
apart generalities, what else do you have to enlighten us on?
That's true. François Holland have shown only failure for now. 30 years in politic and no one ever gave him responsabilities in socialist government (his ex wife yes). After ten year leeding the Socialists the group've lost more than half of its members. After only 6 days after his election, his "mistress" had allready fired two journalists. One because a funny tweet and the other because she didn't like he invited DSK to his birthday party.
Any way we have to swallow our tears and pray for him to be the "least bad"
{One because a funny tweet and the other because she didn't like he invited DSK to his birthday party.}
Her name is Trierweiler. She is being called by the journalists Rotweiler.
One of those you mention was Julien Dray who not a reporter but a Député ...
She is not an unintelligent woman and does speak her own mind - which is rare in France. I figure she was doing Hollande's bidding but was too indecisive to do it himself.
Segolene Royal, his ex-wife, and the candidate that Sarkozy defeated for the presidency, said of Hollande that his major weakness was indecisiveness.
(So who really will be the next President of France? ;^)
"What a waste"??
But, the Economist, please trial Mr Sakorzy as PM in the UK if you are so nostalgic. He would not last 6 months, he who cannot stand free press nor contradiction!
Ridiculous statement. Sincerely.
Great article, what a waste.
If you think France has free press compare the Petit Journal and Grand Journal of Canal+ of both Hollande and Sarkosy. Compare the sequence one at a time: the juxtaposition speaks for itself. It's shockingly in favor of Hollande. Compare articles in Le Monde... And I am not talking about dozen of other major journalists or media brand.
Good luck with Hollande. We'll see what comes out.
" he cannot stand free press".
Please !! Of course he cannot. Have you seen how he was treated by the french left-wing press throughout his quinquennium?
It was unacceptable. There wasn't any fair treatment between the two candidates. All french newspapers are on the left-wing in favor of the socialist canditate, except one " Le figaro", and they just kept insulting the outgoing president throughout the campaign. It was a total brainwashing
Mr Sarkozy refused to face the press for 4 years and a half, as he could not stand being contradicted during the one and only conference he gave before the French press at the beginning of his presidency.
It is understandable that your interpretations are biaised. Mr Hollande supporters too shouted that le Petit Journal was too nice when they hosted Mr Sarkozy.
The Grand Journal broadcast director was the official director for all of Mr Sarkozy's meetings. So that would be astonishing if he had been against his employer no?
The one thing I noticed though was that Mr Sarkozy tried to intimidate the Petit Journal show host, who noticed it as well.
As for Le Figaro, supporting Mr Sarkozy's party is in their mission statement, so no surprise there.
These 5 years were mistakes one after the other. To the point of choosing a campaign advisor coming from the far right. That could not keep going like this.
He did not allow any credible alternative from his side, such as Mr Juppé, to campaign nor contradict him.
The next credible alternative was on the mild-left side with Mr Hollande.
Be it in Germany, the UK, the US, Mr Sarkozy would not have lasted more than 6 months with the way dealt with internal affairs.
We voted for Mr Sarkozy one too many times.
Bon vent for now.
complete BS
The Americans would have loved him for being direct, The German had Schröder, the Russians Putin, the Brits? the royal family !
http://ce-soir-ou-jamais.france3.fr/?page=emission&id_rubrique=1557
Malika Sorel (of Algerian origin), says that Sarkozy was more of a american president type, that the French aren’t worshipping
Classy reply, we appreciate your contribution MC.
I'm not sure how Americans would have welcomed Gaddahfi and his tent in Central Park though.
no, they are more clever they managed to take his money and absolved him, leaving Europe to restaure his new born virginity
Though, that was the deal for freeing the Bulgarian nurses
you sure are more classy than me !
Your first point is interesting MC. Can you elaborate please?
Sarkozy cannot stand free press?
Apparently you have never heard France inter, a socialist radio, paid by French tax payers, campaigning during five years against Sarkozy without being reminded the necessity of political restraint. You have never read le Monde, Libération, le Nouvel Obs, Alternatives économiques (a socialist pamphlet) all against liberalism and Sarkozy...Ridiculous statement. Sincerely
@jpd007
Hummm, your comment is your responsibility.
Explain me however the reason for Mr Sarkozy organizing one and only one press conference at the beginning of his presidency, so that for 4 years and a half he did not have to justify his choices in front of real contradiction.
Explain me however the reason for suing so many journalists and newspapers, to a point never reached by any French president (and who's paying I might ask?).
And, for the anecdote, explain me how come two humorists were fired within weeks following the nomination, by Mr Sarkozy, of the new head of the radio you mention.
Pl. explain to me how is it possible to have public radios financed by the state (i.e.by tax payers) which are openly socialist and you say that Sarkozy does not stand free press...All medias were against Sarkozy and this does not strike you...
The President, according to the French Constitution, you dont seem to know, has not to justify itself in front of adverse journalists but in front of the people. He lost, that is enough...
@jpd007
Well you seem to have a very biased view of things.
I don't understand this focus on this radio, and don't know if your statement is true, never heard them say they were supporters of the Socialist party. Anyone from this radio reading this thread?
Some press is clearly opinionated, like Le Figaro, Liberation or L'Humanité. You know what to expect.
And you seem to support the position about the press that Mr Sarkozy chose during the campaign. I did not think it was appropriate for a French president, as was his global attitude towards any form of contradiction. This created only anger and reactions out of proportions. Where do you stand about the BFM and Mediapart journalists being molested 4 days before the second round, in meetings held to support Mr Sarkozy?
For 4 years and a half he chose not to answer questions: journalists, who have access to the politicians, had to do their job at some point. And I am glad they did it.
We will agree to disagree on this.
"The tragedy of the Sarkozy presidency, however, is that he seems in the end to have been his own worst enemy"
Some may argue that young Nicolas was traumatized by his self-aggrandizing double-crossing father,who through sheer power of imagination transformed his origin as a pre-communist Hungarian small-village bigshot into a legend of nobility, and moved from sleeping in the 1940s Paris subway to an Ibiza villa by means of selling nice lies in the advertisement business and selling out quite a few people, including Nicola´s mother and their child support-deprived children along the way.
Nicolas was not an Énarque.Is this something to be proud of? Maybe if he had been able to become an enarque he would have been a more noble person.He double-crossed Pasqua,Chirac-who voted for Hollande-, two of his three wives...even crazy and foolish Gadaffi.
Maybe his inner trauma prevented the best in him to come out.In any event, he accomplished little of relevance for the French, as your political eulogy of an article concedes, and therefore a replacement was called for.
At least he got Carla Bruni- let´s wish them a long and happy retirement.
I did not know that ENA was a proof of nobility.
Not going to ENA is not something to be proud of but it is not something to be ashamed of either.
I do think that having non-énarques at the head of the State was refreshing. Most of them think the same, look the same and talk the same. And since this is the caste that governed us for 25 of the last 30 years, which have been less than stellar, they are partly if not essentially responsible for the country's current state.
I do believe Sarkozy had the merits of wiping certainties off these brilliant minds that cannot think the State as anything else than a tax & spend machine.
{I do think that having non-énarques at the head of the State was refreshing.}
So what we had in France was free-masons who surrounded Sarkozy.
Was that any different?
Not really. It is called "corporatism", where the boys all gather into a clique and promote that clique. Meaning belonging becomes more important than competence. Any meritocracy should prefer the latter over the former.
But politics is, sadly, not a meritocracy. And, more sadly, all too often, neither is business. Not in France, where reports show how many ENArques are perpetually ministerial heads or Free-masons at the head of corporations. Or, worse yet, ENArques (trained in the administration of government agencies) pass into state enterprises that are privatized - and face a world of indigenous risk-taking for which they are hugely unprepared.
Corporatism in leadership (either in business or political governance) is still very much prevalent in a great deal of Europe.
Hollande, Melenchon are free-masons too, uh the only one that could be a exception is Eva Joly, but who need her non-sense ?
tell me if José Bové is a free-mason?
{Maybe if he had been able to become an enarque he would have been a more noble person. He double-crossed Pasqua,Chirac-who voted for Hollande-, two of his three wives...even crazy and foolish Gadaffi.}
Tendentious piffle. Who cares except small-minds?
An ENArque is taught to think inside-the-box when what is required (to get out of this present mess) is very definitely some brave (but perhaps risky) ideas well beyond present conventions.
Sarkozy, like him or not, was a mover and initiator - quite unlike others of his party (Chirac, le Roi Faignant) as well as the Socialists who are very capable at speechifying but abjectly incompetent at facing a reality beyond their comprehension.
And, of course, Merkel is considered just a Drag Queen. When, in fact, she is perhaps the only EU-leader who understands well enough the pathetic situation in which the EU finds itself.
I am not a member of that august body.
I prefer the Boy Scouts. Far more innocuous company and less portentous rigmarole.
chacun sa tribu
On parle des tribus? Moi, je parlais des réalités.
Mon tribu est la Partie Démocrate aux USA dont le chef de file s'appelle Obama. Vous avez quelque chose à ecrire à-propos de mon tribu?
Do you really know NS? it's seems to me that you have only red the headlines from socialist papers.
Oh shut up TE!
I am sure most people including the French are relived to see the back of that pompous a$$!!!
relieved
And while many people obviously voted against the person, they certainly did not support Mr Hollande's program.
That election was won on the mere basis of personal rejection of Mr Sarkozy's attitude, regardless of the achievements / failures of the president. Quite a lame choice from the French.
a$$ ?? not really elegant. I voted for sakozy in 2007, did it again in 2012 . right now I am sad and disgusted.
"right now I am sad and disgusted."
A lot of French have spent the past five years being incensed and disgusted. The wheel turns.
At last you can plan on sweet revenge by nurturing the Sarkozy-II, The Come-Back, aka Mr Copé 2017. While we shudder and gag at the very idea.
or Juppé
it's clear that the majority of the Hollande voters reacted against Sarkozy's person, and are doubful of the Hollande policy
http://www.atlantico.fr/decryptage/majorite-francais-confiance-francois-...
Your link is dead already, but anyway Atlantico is hardly unbiased. Why don't you quote directly from Le Figaro?
sorry, the link still works, try again !
hmm Le Figaro?
sure these aren't lefty medias !
In fact, nearly 48% of the French electorate (and 80% of that electorate voted) are probably sorry to see him leave the scene. That's nearly half the French voting population ...
You are making a judgment based upon sentimental convictions, which, in politics, is almost always wrongly based.
By becoming a Johnny comes lately Fascist advocating a monocultural homogeneous State, the dude had probably forfeited his chances to ever becoming a modern French statesman in an increasing diverse world.
The game that is politics is being executed to exceptional standards only in Russia. The rest have failed, it shouldn't come as shock and in opinion political leaders if to survive should put their ministers on the spotlight instead of taking heat on every issue.
It is not only adieu sarkozy... it is also SIMPLY GO TO HELL sarkozy...that man sacked 50 million(?) € from ghaddafi and simply killed him... a nice partner to cooperate with; isn't he??? i should say no ... the deeper down he goes to hell the better... I'm really sorry for being that blunt, but that's my honest point of view...I'm sure he will meet up wtih ghaddafi in hell...then they can discuss that 502 million € deal in detailled lengh and... I'm sure ghaddafi will want some answers from sarkozy as to why he got killed by him for sponsoring his campaign...should be explainable one way or the other or sarkozy comes up with some lies like he always does....
The 50 M€ from Qaddafi remain to be proven. Indeed, the charge is so serious that were it true, not only Sarkozy but many senior members of his party and senior government officials should be held accountable. Otherwise, of course, there should be a libel indictment.
just last week papers proving the 50 million € were released or somehow got into the hands of the media since the french press was reporting about it. even media from other countries ran the news, but, of course, the news wasn't run from sarkozy-sided media. the only thing the 50-m-€-matter is telling me, is, what kind of human being and business partner and politician and, especially, since he studied law, what kind of comprehension of justice and law and legality he has... just about zero!!! for him the end justifies the means... and exactly this attitude of his got so apparent at the end of his presidency that the people simply said no to him --- the only right answer he truly deserves... he could have had it otherwise, but his unethical, opportunistic personality simply brought him down...he was his own luck's master, just like every human being is... everyone has and can make a choice ... always...best regards...
There is no denying that the charges are serious, but I haven't heard about confirmed proofs yet. Last time Le Monde made an article about this, it was on May 6th, to tell that the document lacks credibility. What is well known, though, is that Sarkozy wanted to sell a lot of military hardware and even a nuclear power plant to Qaddafi's Libya.
The Libyan NTC denied that such money was delivered to Sarkozy
hmm Sarkozy selling arms to Gadhafi, he wasn't in the first ranks, the Brits were there a couple of years before, the Italian's, that never left...
No prouf at all. This smelly bomb appeared a week before election by a man who wanted to push Nicolas Sarkozy out. This paper is paid by socialists.
Why ask for 50 millions when the campain in France can't overdue 25 millions.
Nicolas Sarkozy invited Kadafi in France because he wanted to discuss about the 6 bulgarian nurses who were jailed, raped ans neglect for 7 years in lybian jail. Nicolas succeed by freeing them.
After when the libians made revolution kadafi wanted to kill his people and Nicolas Sarkozy, with the usa, england and many countries even arabian conutry decided to destroy kadafi tanks to avoid the killing of thousend in benghasi. Nicolas Sarkozy is a hero in lybia and France has shined that day.
Before posting your crap you should learn your french history
So bye-bye to NICOLAS SARKOZY .In my opinion all Western politicians are to some extent like little boys.They are not mature enough to govern countries.Why Westerners would like to select them?
One thing that all Westerners may not understand is that it is difficult for a country to be well with lots of poor neighbours around you .Gunboat policy never resolve any problems .
Nicolas Sarkozy was above all an over-aspiring but utterly incompetent neocon with a big mouth, just that. Only a very few will ever lament his defeat.
Like 48% of the electorate? It's good for them to know that France isn't their country anymore. These vindictive statements littered across the board are a good way of telling how tolerant the new gang is going to be of dissenting opinions.
You know... I'm French, and Nicolas Sarkozy is for many people here a symbol as Charles de Gaulle. He created a real political movement with his behaviour : sarkozysm. Many young people like me are really inspired thanks to him. He is the guy who made us love politics since 2007 and who taught us to fight every time for french values.
As many french presidents, he will be popular in a few months.
To compare Sarkozy with De Gaulle, even only in his post-1958 period, is quite exagerated.
Of course... They don't have the same historic dimension. I just mean that he is probably the President after De Gaulle who will leave a mark on the 5th french Republic.
Which is your choice for a mentor and a career, Damien? Fillon or Copé?
Copé ! More combative I think...
He'll fight to the last drop of your blood... with Fillon you have a chance of staying alive for the big day, and reaping some crumbs of the spoils.
Boff, you like too much the political correctness
I agree with niemad123, that Sarkozy will leave more prints in our collective memory than the De Gaulle following governments (be them of left and or of the right), just that we have to let the heat cool down, like Juppé said
Mr Sarkozy vs Charles De Gaulle...I think we've reached the Goodwin point here!
I already replied to this commentary : "They don't have the same historic dimension. I just mean that he is probably the President after De Gaulle who will leave a mark on the 5th french Republic."
As the one who proposed to close our borders, definitely he will leave his mark, I agree.
A "print" which needs to "let the heat cool down" is a burn scar.
Quoth the Raven: "Never more!"
the lefties have a short memory, De Gaulle was the worst fashist, now he is the model for french policies, Chirac was a big liar, but now such a funny fellow, still Giscard remaind "constipé for the lefties and the righties
200000 thousand people with him at Trocadero! fery few pictures only has been shown. Nobody haven't seen that since august 25, 1944. Everybody was happy to be there with the french flag. It was outstanding how we felt love for this president from evryone
"De Gaulle was the worst fashist"
He was an open-minded nationalist with an authoritarian streak and no qualms about bending constitutional rules. But you have to educate yourself about what fascists were: they had a set of beliefs and behaviors which quite sharply sets them apart.
I opposed De Gaulle for all my youth, but I would never think of calling him a fascist. And Sarkozy is no fascist either.
I suppose that you are too smart for calling de Gaulle a fashist, unfortunately not the majority of the lefties could gloat for the same quality
How silly must the UMP feel today. If Nicolas Sarkozy hadn't been so optimistic as to run for his own re-election and let someone like, say, Alain Juppé run in the presidential, it seems highly likely that Hollande would have been defeated. It is true that many people voted "against Sarkozy" rather that "for Hollande". Chirac himself said he would have gladly voted for Juppé but that on sunday he voted for Hollande.
A costly error in judgment on Sarkozy's part.
The alternate candidate theory seems appealing at times... yet what we are hearing from politicial scientists doing the after-battle report is that the change looked likely, if only because of the crisis that has broken every incumbent government and the length of time ellapsed since the Socialistes were last in power. Juppé, as commanding as he appears, would probably have faced the same great difficulties, because Hollande would still have been running on the claim that the last five years have been a fiasco, and that he Hollande was the right Mr Fixit for the country. As Prime Minister in 1995-1997, Juppé tried to introduce a pensions reform that went the same direction as Sarkozy's in 2010 but was forced back by an immense strike wave (no public transport anywhere for over three weeks) that showed a country that was in as much denial about its situation then than it is today. That was a very sore experience for Juppé and it's doubtful he would have wanted to renew it. He's been quite a respected Foreign Minister but that is a domain which is probabvly more suited to his temperament and doesn't generate the same kind of public resentment as a top job. Juppé considered running, by virtue of seniority, only in the case of Sarkozy deciding himself not to run.
But how was Sarkozy expected not to run? There's never an incumbent in the history of the Fifth republic who has not wanted to have his term validated by an electoral judgment. For five years there was systematic opposition from the left to everything he did, from universities to military garrisons, from pensions to constitutional ammendment. Charges of corruption and abuse of power were levelled against him. The temptation to ask there electorate to judge in last resort was very strong. Sarkozy wasn't in the position of a Lyndon Johnson bogged down in the Vietnam War, he felt he has a record to present and defend, he took a gamble and he lost. Even if this comes at the price of his second term, this choice to run for re-lection in difficult odds probably serves to put the legacy of his term into a better perspective than had he just chosen to cut his loses and avoid an electoral verdict. That would have meant that he didn't believe in his record, yet, he has much cause to believe in it, despite what his natural opponents think.
http://www.lemonde.fr/election-presidentielle-2012/video/2012/05/07/alai...
In my mind, I can't shake off a few similarities/differences Sarkozy shared with another former president, a Mr Mbeki. Where Sarkozy was Rolex, Mbeki was president in absentia.
By the time the ruling party torpedoed Thabo Mbeki's role as the country's leader, there had been a growing delta between his passionately intellectual endeavours on the African Renaissance, NEPAD and African Consciousness and his roles chiefly in AIDS denialism, and Zimbabwe. The latter two caused in part by his desire for African solutions to African problems.
These topics Mbeki pursued are very important for the continent. They're serious identity issues that need exploration. Unfortunately, Mr Mbeki's presidency was marked by growing divisions in South African society along racial lines, so too Sarkozy's France. I think in the end, large portions of South African citizenry disliked Mbeki intensely.
The divisions Mbeki sowed outed him, and left quite a large vacant spot in intellectual discourse, especially with regards South Africa in the eyes of the continent. I can't say much for Sarkozy other than finding him boring, and unceremoniously having the unfortunate luck of giving Germany all the euro power.
Mr Sarkozy was perhaps the most brilliant politician of its generation. However he was not flawless. What was striking was his apparent control problem. I saw him literally fuming and yelling at teachers in a discussion table in front of media (FR-2) concerning one of his mantra, more work for more pay: one of the teachers dared to question him on how he could achieve this. Sarkozy’s violent reaction didn’t look good to say the least.
"He [Nicolas Sarkozy] has become such an object of hate during this campaign that the French seem to have forgotten why they ever elected him."
A very interesting statement, which is all the more strkining to hear after the electoral defeat, rather than during the campaign when he was fighting for his political life. Perhaps it is not altogether surprising that this has not been uttered by a French journalist. An acquaintance of mine, a television news anchor, confessed she had been utterly surprised by his confession speech; I almost replied it was interesting that a veteran journalist such as herself had not been able to find this side to the man over the previous years of covering him.
Perhaps defeat is an actual come-uppance, that once one has tasted the limits of one's success, humility comes naturally, unlike in the glory days.
These observations reinforce the feeling that the actual historical judgment on the last five years is still out. It will be fully done once the five years of his successor have passed, the more so as he has been elected on the basis of a supposed more attractive personality.
And there's a columnist in the magazine Le Point who has entitled his piece: "Dare to be unpopular, Mr Hollande!" while exhorting him to denounce, at the first possible occasion, the entire platform on which he has been elected.