BORING FOR FRANCE NO MORE
M Chirac is counting on the French elections having suddenly become
exciting, says Douglas Johnson Paris EVERYONE saw him. One of the first images to be shown to the French on Sun- day, 25 May was that of the Prime Minis- ter, Alan Juppe, casting his vote at Bordeaux. And everyone was told that he had, in fact, voted twice. This was a wise precaution. His followers should have done the same, then no one would have seen M. Juppe in the early evening of Monday, 26 May, explaining that he would be resigning as prime minister. Whoever won the elections on Sunday, 1 June, the date of the second and defini- tive ballot, he would not be prime minis- ter. This is an extraordinary development.
The government headed by M. Juppe has not yet been defeated. It is perfectly true that the Socialist-led coalition may well be victorious, and the figures suggest that on the evidence of last Sunday's voting they could have a majority of between 30 and 40, but there are many uncertainties in an elec- tion where a third of the voters abstained and where a change in the votes of only 1 per cent could mean a vastly different result. Thus the dropping of the Prime Min- ister is a sign of panic on the part of the President of the Republic, and the presence of M. Juppe will be a constant reminder of this disarray. He is likely to be re-elected deputy for Bordeaux and he will remain that city's mayor (and, incidentally, he voted twice because he was voting for himself and for his predecessor as mayor, Jacques Cha- ban-Delmas, who cannot vote because of ill- ness). Thus M. Juppe is unlikely to disappear, as if he were Neil Kinnock.
President Chirac is now running his own campaign. There will be rumours about his choice to replace M. Juppe if he wins, but it is M. Chirac who will be in the front line. His interventions in this week's debate will be vital, and not only for France. Should the Socialist-led coalition win, will M. Chirac resign? He would not be obliged to, but then General de Gaulle was not obliged to resign when he lost the referen- dum in 1969. He did, however. And if the Socialists win and if Chirac does not resign, will he then conduct all the negotiations which are necessarily going to take place over Europe and all the changes which must take place in the organisation of French society with a team of ministers to whom he is already fiercely opposed? There are no politics like French politics.
It would certainly be difficult for Presi- dent Chirac to adopt a Harold Macmillan- like nonchalance and to explain to the world's leaders gathered in Paris for the Nato-Russia treaty that he has some little local difficulties. The complexities of the situation are illustrated by examining the National Front. This was for a long time treated as a purely temporary phe- nomenon, a political expression that could be compared to the long-forgotten grum- blings of Pierre Poujade in the 1950s. But It is still there, it has gained some 15 per cent of the vote, and a National Front can- didate will be standing in 133 constituen- cies for the second ballot. The experts say that no more than five can be elected, and possibly only one or two, or even none at all. But who will vote for them? Will it be followers of the traditional Right, who are nationalist, anti-European Union and anti- immigrant? Or will it be one-time left- wingers, who wish to protest about international capitalism and globalisation?
The situation is all the more unpre- dictable as the National Front is far from united over tactics. Where no Front candi- date is standing, there are those who share Le Pen's detestation of M. Chirac and who will transfer their votes to the Socialists. But there are probably more who detest above all the Socialist party's ally, the Communists, whom they see as the friend of immigrants. It is likely that in many constituencies purely local issues will determine the nature of the Front's support, since most of their candi- dates have important local responsibilities which justify their presence as candidates. Thus it is not easy to predict how they will affect the outcome.
Of course, M. Chirac is able to defend himself. Everything started with his deci- sion to dissolve the Assembly a year early. This was because he thought he could spring a surprise on the opposition parties and that he would do better in 1997 than in 1998. But he says he was giving the peo- ple the right to choose who should repre- sent them when certain important decisions had to be made. What could be more democratic? Now, he has sacrificed M. Juppe. He has publicly put the blame on his prime minister for the unsatisfactory result of last Sunday's vote. But, replies M. Chirac, it is clear that M. Juppe is unpopu- lar, so he has listened to the people. He has taken the appropriate action, although it has been painful for him to lose a valued and trusted minister.
And what is at stake? The future of France, the future of Europe, the destiny of France in the world, the prosperity and well-being of the French nation. When, at the height of the Algerian crisis when France was facing upheaval and the prospect of civil war, General de Gaulle cried, 'Francais, frangaises, aidez-moi,' the whole population was moved. But no one can repeat that speech of 23 April 1961 not even M. Chirac, for all his undoubted- ly strong personality. What is possible is that those who voted for parties that have disappeared, those who have registered their protest, those who abstained, will turn to support M. Chirac, either out of fear of the Socialists or because the elec- tions that were boring have now become dramatic and interesting. M. Chirac is counting on this.
The situation is not without its irony. M. JuppO must often remember the day in 1994 when M. Jospin asked that he should be given a diplomatic post that was vacant in Switzerland. The implication was that he was tired of politics and particularly of the Socialist party. The then prime minis- ter, M. Balladur, thought that he should be appointed, but M. Juppe, then foreign minister, claimed that this would be improper. Perhaps he now regrets his punctilious behaviour.
It is also ironical that Europe should have played such a small part in the elec- tions so far. After all, M. Chirac wanted to have his hands free for all the difficult negotiations that are scheduled for 1998. But no one talked about Europe. It's tempting to say that they didn't want to repeat Mr Major's mistake of talking too much about Europe, but there are good reasons for avoiding talk about Europe in France. Not all the Gaullists in the majority are favourable to a full European commit- ment; they also find M. Chirac too depen- dent upon Chancellor Kohl, too anxious to show that he's the best boy in the class. No one in the majority wanted to talk about the need to make further cuts in govern- ment expenditure in order to meet the Maastricht criteria. The Socialists cannot oppose the commitment to the European Union. It was the Socialists Delors and Mitterrand who were the authors of Maas- tricht, but the party cannot be whole-heart- ed and uncritical supporters of the European Union, since their Communist allies are whole-hearted opponents. And, according to the calculations arising from the ballot of 25 May, the Socialists would not have a majority without the Commu- nists. (The fact that the two most vocifer- ous opponents of Europe are the Communists and the National Front makes nonsense of the traditional dichotomy of French politics between Left and Right.) Thus, for a time at least, Europe is a sub- ject that requires stealth and subtlety.
Perhaps there is a crisis. There were more than 6,000 candidates, and it has been esti- mated that some 15 per cent of the votes were cast for small parties and groups which had no possible future. They were therefore protest votes of one sort or another. There were 30 per cent of abstentions. The system is therefore not working. This is what Toc- queville called 'the fatigue of liberty'.
Could this be why the recent British example appeals to the French? As every- one says, the French became `Blairite'. M. Chirac admired his liberalism when they met in Holland. It is said that Blair remind- ed Chirac of himself, when he became prime minister in 1974, at the age of 41. Then again, writing in Le Monde in November 1993, he expressed the view that 40-year-olds were unsuitable as prime min- isters. But that's Chirac.
Previous page
