Nice-Première: 2007 is an important political year. By focusing so much on the Presidential and Legislative elections, is there a risk that elected officials might neglect local issues?
Dominique Estrosi: I hope not! Today, there is such a discredit cast by our fellow citizens on the political class that it would be catastrophic for elected officials to neglect local issues under the pretext of important national deadlines. These deadlines imply that elected officials fully engage in this debate without compromising their actions on the ground to best meet the citizens’ expectations. Most local elected officials are well aware that they must first and foremost listen to the base, be present, and hear their concerns. Elections, no matter how significant, should not prevent us from continuing to act locally to find the best solutions to the issues our citizens and elected officials face.
NP: What is your position on these two deadlines, on the campaigns, agreements, disagreements, and tensions within both the PS and the UMP, now that your party also has primaries like the Socialist Party?
DE: It’s naturally a somewhat tense period. Nothing is completely settled and fixed. The campaign hasn’t officially started. There is logically a bit of uncertainty, desires, and ambitions that can legitimately express themselves. It’s crucial to remember that we cannot win by being divided. Unity and solidarity are essential conditions for victory. We’ve seen this too many times in the past, and it applies to both the Socialist Party and the UMP. Today, a phase begins with the announcement of candidatures, with an extended period allowing everyone to make up their mind with full conscience, but once the deadline is over, after the National Congress meeting, there should be a single candidate in our political family, who then begins campaigning, supported by everyone regardless of any grievances or personal ambitions they may have. This concern is related to the victory. Things are complicated in politics today, and our voters would not forgive us for letting such an opportunity pass due to mere internal disputes. There’s still a month for things to be expressed openly. Then, we must get into campaign mode and no longer question ourselves. It’s in everyone’s interest in our political family to ensure our leader, our champion, wins. It also pertains to the legislative elections and, in 2008, the municipal ones, which are equally important.
NP: Are you opposed to the candidacies of Mr. Dupont-Aignan, Mrs. Boutin?
DE: No. I am not opposed to their candidatures. I agree with the party’s stance: all candidatures within the UMP have their legitimacy to express and declare themselves in the highest transparency. It’s then up to the members to decide. Once they’ve chosen, and as we saw with the PS, and God knows it wasn’t easy in the beginning, there should no longer be any second thoughts.
NP: Would it be up to the designated candidate to consider all the expressed sensitivities…?
DE: Likely. This should be taken into consideration so that everyone can acknowledge that there is an important and fundamental deadline for our country’s future, even more so than for previous presidential elections, with a generational change and more significant societal problems, meaning that no one has the right to sacrifice this chance for victory, which we must seize with seriousness, determination, and will, not by putting forth any partisan interests.
NP: You were expected to run for the Legislative. Were you not tempted by the venture?
DE: Well, no! I have no desire to candidacy anywhere. I simply want to continue with the responsibilities that have been entrusted to me until the anticipated end.
NP: Could it be a project for the future?
DE: I don’t formalize a project because everything evolves so quickly. What is true one day isn’t necessarily true the next. I have no plans. There are deadlines: the presidential, legislative, and others in 2008. There’s no need to get ahead of ourselves. What matters to me is to continue working for my city, within this municipality, to modestly try to respond to needs and expectations in the areas that are mine.
NP: In the first district, there is turbulence between Eric Ciotti and Jérôme Rivière. What do you think of this episode? Does it harm the image of the UMP?
DE: I won’t comment on what happened before. I am a loyalist. Today, there is a candidate, Eric Ciotti, officially endorsed, who represents the movement I belong to. I offer unconditional support without any second thoughts about the candidate from my political family.
NP: It’s also legitimate for Jérôme Rivière to want to run again…
DE: Yes, I can understand that it’s legitimate for him to want to run again, to approach the voters once more so they can say whether or not he’s had a good record. This will be reflected in the ballots. The UMP has chosen its candidate, and he is the one I intend to support, hoping he will win next June.
NP: Ségolène Royal as President? How does this inspire you? Could you subconsciously be less harsh on her because she’s a woman, with perhaps some feminine solidarity due to the sexist mockery from some of your male colleagues?
DE: Being a woman or a man is not a handicap in politics. What matters is competence, which can be both masculine and feminine. I primarily focus on competence, the ideas defended, the project, and presence on the ground. Today, don’t act, Ségolène Royal has been acclaimed by the militants. It’s important to note that this is only at the militant level, not the French public. There is still a lot of ground to cover. Being a woman may give her a fresh appearance on the political scene, but it’s not entirely true since she’s been in political circles for twenty years in various capacities. We have a trend phenomenon. It isn’t necessarily a good thing, as it could fall out of fashion, and women would bear the consequences. We must avoid going from one extreme to another, from denigrating women as we’ve seen, which was unacceptable, to creating a media superwoman syndrome that implies everything is good because she is a woman. We must find a middle ground and ensure everyone is judged based on the ideas put forward. We should be careful that the Ségolène Royal phenomenon does not backfire against women. Later, people might say: ‘Look, you elected a woman, and in the end, you see that women are incapable.’ It is indeed positive that there can be a female candidate in our country, even though there are others running for the presidency: Marie-George Buffet, Dominique Voynet, Arlette Laguiller. Ségolène Royal is not alone. In the image she conveys, she may have a somewhat new concept that seems more modern. The modernity is only superficial, with an underlying archaic stance. The political battle and debate will demonstrate this. Whether at a national or local level, citizens need presence, listening, and efficiency. A man or woman can provide this as long as they are willing and work accordingly. I wouldn’t want the Ségolène Royal phenomenon to turn against women. Today, it seems more positive; it should not create the opposite effect.
NP: Could a similar phenomenon happen with you? Are you afraid of being a passing fad like Ségolène Royal?
DE: I don’t view it as a trend phenomenon. I base my action on proximity, presence. Then, everyone decides for themselves.
“I would keep a very good memory of this experience lived.”
NP: Speaking of which: ‘Women (Agnès Rampal and Dominique Estrosi) are the best elements of the municipal majority.’ What do you think of this statement made by a local left-wing elected official?
DE: I won’t say that it displeases Agnès Rampal, Dominique Estrosi, or other women. It is the responsibility of the elected official who made this statement. Don’t act. There are many, varied skills and qualities. It’s a good thing if people can have such reactions. It’s always important to stay discerning and continue our daily work with the values we believe are the best to promote.
NP: Conversely, are there members from the local left that you particularly appreciate, to return the favor?
DE: I have a republican behavior with the entire municipal opposition or the regional majority. On some issues, it’s possible to talk together and find shared solutions at a given time, regardless of the convictions one holds, such as in housing, transportation, as long as there’s no hidden agenda, no political drift, and no dominance. In the region, there are points with Marc Donis, the mayor of Valbonne, who is very involved in housing discussions or commissions, where we engage in constructive and positive exchanges. Acting this way doesn’t mean disregarding one’s defended values. The fight remains present, and with the upcoming deadlines, everyone will advocate for what they hold true in their heart.
NICE
NP: There were rumors that your relationship with the Senator Mayor wasn’t the most cordial. Is it just natural conflicts between two strong characters, or are there real political differences? Is there a line not to cross that could one day lead to your resignation or sidelining like Auguste Vérola?
DE: I have respect and a duty of loyalty towards the Senator Mayor and the Agglomeration President. He is the leader, the team leader. I am one of the members of his team. I don’t claim anything within this team. I don’t demand a more significant position than others. It is normal, for me, to be part of this municipal team, chosen in 2001. I have a duty of respect, loyalty, and work within the guidelines and projects we’ve set together and that we share. When we talk about urban renewal projects like the Ariane and other neighborhoods, when we intervene in housing, these are projects we’ve worked on together and agree on. There are no concerns at that level. I won’t say that everything was a smooth journey between Jacques Peyrat and me because I have my way of being, perhaps a bit too frank and spontaneous, leading at times to discussions. They are always courteous and loyal, and for my part, I leave it at that, which is normal; otherwise, there’s no reason to continue working this way. So yes, at times, there are discussions, but it’s normal. It would be almost abnormal for it to happen otherwise. We’re in a team, passionately carrying out projects. We believe in what we do. This can be seen at all levels of society. You never have situations where everything proceeds transparently and smoothly without any differing views emerging. They have to be brought to the table at some point. That’s what can happen between Jacques Peyrat and me. For my part, I don’t intend to challenge the municipal authority he represents, including at the CANCA level. I continue with my conviction and determination to act this way, trying to implement, know thoroughly, and advance several projects.
NP: Is it complicated to change the Senator Mayor’s mind?
DE: I don’t try to change the Senator Mayor’s mind. I merely attempt, if on some points we have differing views or areas for improvement, to bring them up. It’s not in my mindset to say: “Hey, you’re going to see the Mayor and change his mind.” It is a matter of addressing certain things, offering a perspective, asking, “Why not consider it this way?” The person then has enough perspective and knowledge to say, “Yes, perhaps we can change… or perhaps we cannot.” I don’t intend to change the Senator Mayor of Nice’s mind.
NP: Municipal elections in 2007 or 2008?
DE: We are basing this on the calendar that was voted on. So it will be 2008.
NP: No rumors in the municipal corridors for 2007?
DE: We hear Nicolas Sarkozy, Brice Hortefeux suggesting elections could be advanced to fall 2007. Ségolène Royal also mentioned it. But why speculate? There are so many question marks in the upcoming months to wonder about the municipal elections. Today, they’ve been moved from March 2007 to March 2008. Let’s leave it at that and wait for the deadlines.
NP: Are you preparing for them? Is it present in the municipal ambiance?
DE: Not more than that. I intend to complete this mandate because it’s a mandate with a record that we won’t be ashamed of, with significant projects completed. After that? What will happen in March 2008? We first need to see how the presidential and legislative elections unfold. A new order will undoubtedly emerge, which won’t be insignificant in the debates for the municipal elections. Let’s give time to time. It’s pointless to rush and make plans on the comet. It would be ridiculous to say, “No matter what happens, such-and-such will be a candidate.” Situations and conditions will force that person to agree that it’s no longer relevant. The only thing that matters is action on the ground and work. We’ll see afterward. There’s a political party I belong to, and I will always align with what it decides.
NP: Do you know if Jacques Peyrat will run again?
DE: He has stated loudly and clearly at various events and meetings that he will be a candidate for a third term.
NP: Would you support him without issue?
DE: I won’t comment. I’ll wait to see the presidential elections, legislatives, and the line the UMP will determine.
NP: A quick comparison: Will Jacques Chirac be a candidate again? Are you in favor?
DE: I don’t have to be in favor or not. It’s up to everyone to determine with their conscience regarding the role they played, the current situation, and the higher general interest that should be prioritized. It is up to the individual declaring candidacy to be responsible, assess the situation in light of the risks and consequences.
NP: Isn’t he the priority candidate? Should the others, including Nicolas Sarkozy, step aside if he declares his candidacy?
DE: There isn’t a priority candidate. Of course, the decision of the President of the Republic is significant. He’s outgoing and has done two terms. His position and voice will have a strong impact. For now, there’s no priority candidate. It’s just about responding to circumstances and situational context at the present moment. The 2007 deadlines are so critical in a world undergoing considerable change and evolution, with clear new aspirations outlined by our voters. Everyone, no matter the stature or position they hold, needs to question their responsibilities and discern what is best for the country.
NP: Returning to Nice. Sulzer, tramway, stadium, communication… Numerous issues have arisen in Nice City Hall. Is it difficult to work under these conditions? Is there now more vigilance and rigor in handling files?
DE: We must avoid generalizations. I refrain from reacting to these matters since most haven’t been adjudicated. Justice must do its work independently and will reach its conclusions. We shouldn’t cast aspersions on a municipal administration, the city of Nice, or the majority of municipal employees and directors who work with serious dedication and honesty. There isn’t any more vigilance than before. It has always been in place. We cannot know everything about each person in such a vast administration. Let justice do its job first, after which we can discuss these concerns.
NP: What do you think of the Nice press landscape, including Nice Première?
DE: Nice Première presents a new medium in its communication and form, occupying a legitimate and natural space with which we must reckon. As a mother of two, teenagers are not entirely ingrained in paper media communication. Internet is part of their everyday lives, engaging with MSN, blogs… Nice Première fits perfectly with that age group. It’s a vector that will find its place in the future. It’s positive for it to find a place in the current world without removing the joy of holding a paper in hands for those who prefer the physical copy for information. The more press plurality there is, the better it is for democracy.
NP: Are you wary of the media? Are they detrimental to good political practice? Do you monitor the image you project?
DE: I am not wary of the media. I am cautious about over-mediatization. It is important that the media, regardless of their role, and power, do not become overly present or hold too much sway over political, legislative, or judicial matters. Each must hold its rightful place. I am not wary of the media. They are there to relay this proximity and ground. Care must be taken to ensure that over-mediatization doesn’t overshadow essential issues.
NP: Have you learned to use them?
DE: I don’t use them any more than others. They are there. I have developed frank and cooperative relationships with the media. Everyone is fulfilling their role.
NP: What was your trigger for getting involved in politics?
DE: It is somewhat rooted in the past. My father held a public role for twenty years in local public life. I’ve always been around this environment. He instilled in me values like proximity, solidarity, and a human approach. They became part of me. He helped foster a strong affection for the city of Nice, which he also had. My life journey led to meeting a politician, contributing alongside them both in campaigns and alongside them. It was natural and ingrained within my strong internally held convictions. This wasn’t new.
In 2001, I transitioned from shadow to light, although that’s a grand term, mostly because of the gender parity law, which I initially opposed. When enacted in 2001 during list-based elections, Jacques Peyrat approached me. After consideration—since it’s not a decision to be taken lightly—I thought, why not try the experience and modestly contribute to the municipal team and particularly to the city.
NP: It was therefore natural?
DE: I believe so. Due to my family history, it was natural. Gender parity laws perhaps accelerated matters as women became essential candidates. For many, it was overwhelming. Today, there might be more involvement due to increased engagement. In 2001, it was still thin. Five years later, I am happy to have lived and fully embraced this experience. I hope to continue participating in future electoral prospects, but if not, I will cherish the memory of this lived experience.
NP: Will your children naturally follow in your footsteps?
DE: I don’t think so. They are both pursuing significant university studies in business schools. One in Toulouse, the other here in Nice. They are interested as it directly concerns them but see it from a distance as many young people do. Due to their education in commerce schools, which advances early citizenship and responsibility, they have developed ideas. They handle it well but aren’t deeply engaged. They aren’t first-hour activists but are discerning spectators nonetheless.
NP: Do they give you advice?
DE: They offer remarks, critiques, and judgments on current events. It’s valuable to get a youthful perspective. It reminds me of their thoughts when encountering particular situations. I think, “They pointed this out; perhaps it’s not trivial. I should reflect further when faced with such a situation.”
