Nice Premium: How did you perceive the debate between Ségolène Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy?
Claudette Bruno: I found Mr. Sarkozy more convincing than Ms. Royal – he definitely has the stature of a future President of France.
Garibaldo: Necessary. The candidate was spirited. It was enlightening on Sarkozy’s bluffs. It also highlighted two societal choices. One is Berlusconi-like in form, authoritarian in institutional function, economically benefiting the wealthy and the rentiers.
I particularly appreciated the real assessment of the security policy over the past five years and how the proposals of “work overtime to get rich” were dismantled. During the first hour, the candidate clearly had the upper hand. The debates then became somewhat bogged down. The two journalists were below what was expected of them.
Philippe Raimondi: It was good for democracy following a second round without debate in 2002. I also think that this true debate between two different societal choices could only be electric, and no matter what one thinks of the two programs, it was the right thing. This debate was more useful to France than the too passive and non-aggressive debate in 1995 between Lionel Jospin and Jacques Chirac. Here in Germany, the debate was also commented on; a more aggressive Sego, a more precise Sarko. Funny enough, they use the nicknames Sarko and Sego in television news here. The interest of the French people gathering in cafes to follow this debate as if it were a World Cup football game also fascinated me as well as my German friends: after the 85% turnout, one sees a strong resurgence of interest in political debate in France, whereas previously only the extremes seemed to be the outlet for French expression.
Olivier Tafanelli: It was a very good debate, in terms of verbal jousting. There won’t be any memorable one-liners as there might have been in the past, but we will remember the uncompromising clash of two political beasts.
NP: Do you think it will influence the voters’ choice?
Claudette Bruno: Unfortunately, yes! The “little ones” will be deceived by Ms. Royal’s smile – She never answered precisely on the “how or where” she would find the necessary money, with her, social partners will definitely have work!
Garibaldo: I hope so, but I’m not a fortune-teller…
Philippe Raimondi: I would be less categorical than those who see this type of debate as always a possible turning point three days before an election. Yes, the debate will influence some undecideds but will mainly confirm the convictions of those who have already made up their minds. France has been in campaign mode for a long time, and at least actively since autumn 2006. The debate has been going on strongly for the last six months and we should thank the younger candidates, who propose change, break some taboos. The high turnout in the first round confirms this thesis to me. Certainly, there are undecided voters, as always, but last night’s debate, an indispensable exercise in democracy, cannot erase all the debates that have taken place in recent months thanks to a much stronger media society than in 2002. So, it will influence little. I just hope and think that this debate will strengthen the conviction to vote on May 6th to confirm the participation of April 22nd and give France a clear choice. This is the advantage of the French system; on May 7th, we will know, whereas in Germany after a draw between the two camps, it took six months to know who could govern and how.
Olivier Tafanelli: Sarkozy’s supporters will remain Sarkozysts, Ségo’s supporters will remain Segolénists. Ségolène Royal made more of an effort than Nicolas Sarkozy to convince the undecided, being very combative. Nicolas Sarkozy, on the other hand, tried to “play it safe.”
NP: Did it change your opinion about either of the candidates?
Claudette Bruno: yes, it confirmed my choice towards Mr. Sarkozy.
Garibaldo: Yes, Nicolas Sarkozy appeared much weaker than I thought. I believe that’s why he had refused a debate between all candidates before the first round. Ms. Royal pleasantly surprised me. The least competent of the two was not the one the UMP activists claimed.
Philippe Raimondi: For my part, I would say no. They were as I perceive them.
Anyone who follows politics knows that Sego is more aggressive and tenacious than is said, and Sarko is less brutal and contemptuous than is written.
Each defended their thesis on work and other domestic issues, but also on Europe: the differences are clear and have been known for a long time.
These were confirmed to me during this debate.
Olivier Tafanelli: No!
