Political news has been focused for a few days on the announcement of the return to politics of the former President of the Republic, Nicolas Sarkozy. In fact, why talk about a return? To return, one would have to have left, but frankly, that is not quite the case since Nicolas Sarkozy never really left politics.
Since his departure from the Élysée, he continued to engage in politics, but in a different way, in the background and out of the public eye.
Otherwise, why would the association Les Amis de Nicolas Sarkozy (whose president is, by sheer coincidence, his close friend, Brice Hortefeux) have been founded in the summer of 2012? Certainly not for the pleasure of a picnic with Nadine Morano.
Why quietly (though not so discreetly) support Jean-François Copé during the UMP presidential election in the following autumn, if not to undermine his former “collaborator” François Fillon, preventing him from taking control of the party given his declared presidential ambitions?
And what about the Sarkothon affair that led to Bygmalion, if not for his presence in the party, through trusted men, remaining influential?
Not to mention the appearances accompanying his wife, the singer Carla Bruni, whose musical tour was actually a public relations operation for the ex-president.
The truth is that Nicolas Sarkozy had only one idea on the evening of May 6: To return, because being defeated by a “nobody” (as he describes his successor according to his collaborators’ confessions) is unbearable for him. Moreover, his expression on the night of the defeat showed it without any ambiguity.
How to explain this obsession?
The Latin poet Catullus wrote that “love opposes hate; they compose with each other, then become indistinguishable and this is life,” … but why, for some, does hate often turn more towards power rather than love? One would have to ask good doctor Freud, if he were still around.
Nicolas Sarkozy is thus going to return, he tells us, bearing a new project that aims first to reestablish the UMP or what will be “his” party and then, subsequently, France in 2017.
The words are bold, the ambition immense: Change France. Just that? But, as history reminds us, behind Bonaparte was Napoleon. Should we then expect France to become a personal fiefdom? Sarkokhan, Sarkoland, Sarkozia?
In the face of such fervor and a bit of audacity, Bertolt Brecht’s words seem premonitory: “Unhappy are the countries that need heroes.”
But will this (re)conquest of the good right-wing populace to once again become their champion be so simple and easy?
Will the declared candidates for the UMP presidency be swept aside with a wave of the hand or an announcement? In the 2016 right-wing primary, will they be crushed by the SarkoBis turbocharger when the time comes?
In the meantime, “to see what you might (perhaps) see,” it would be good if Mr. Returning would give us some explanations, not already about the legal cases he is involved in, which are the province of the judiciary, but at least concerning the presence of certain individuals (past, present, and future combined) in his “circle”: The former general of the Élysée then Minister of the Interior pinned for selling two worthless paintings to an unnamed Malaysian citizen for 500,000 euros (sic!), his ideology adviser at the Élysée who recorded private conversations with him, some extracts of which appeared in the press, his lawyer and friend who possessed mobile phones under false names for conversations between them and other interlocutors for compromising dossiers.
It would be good that, when one wants to take on the role of “savior of the nation,” one starts to put order in one’s own behavior, not forgetting that Kant’s ethics align well with Spinoza’s ontology.
Finally, what are the consequences on the local political scene?
It is known that Eric Ciotti has long expressed his choice for François Fillon’s candidacy.
As for Christian Estrosi, he immediately joined Nicolas Sarkozy’s circle. With Brice Hortefeux, he is one of the marshals, guarantors of continuity, in the face of a pack of young wolves hungry for glory and honor. He could have been (or tried to be) the “Mayor of the Republic” given his popular profile and widely experienced managerial skills.
As Kant reminds us, each is free to choose between being “naturaliter maiorennes” or preferring a comfortable tutelage.
Christian Estrosi says he has chosen to be “a vigilant supporter” of Nicolas Sarkozy.
We are allowed to remind him that … adjectives qualify but do not replace the noun!
