After two years of a presidential five-year term, marked by a relative “lethargy” in political commentary even within the majority, a more critical voice seems to be reasserting itself. This is a sign of uncertain times and a consequence of doubts among UMP voters. In his book, “La cité des hommes,” a former Prime Minister expresses concern over a “France falling behind” in a Europe that itself risks “dislocation.” One of his predecessors from Matignon speaks this week of a “divide between the France above and the France below.” For his part, the president of the UMP group in the National Assembly refers to “a nation silently cracking because there is no discourse on identity” in “Le Monde.”
Let us keep our wits about us. Firstly, it is difficult to follow Dominique de Villepin without raising an eyebrow: the “techno-structures” that Jacques Chirac had promised so much to fight against during his 1995 election campaign closed in on the Elysée a few weeks after the presidential election. This was largely driven by his Secretary-General at the time, who criticized some of the most loyal collaborators of the former Mayor of Paris for not being alumni of the ENA. Moving on to the remarks of the Mayor of Bordeaux: words spoken one day in vitriol followed by the flattest apologies the next day prove he has not yet definitively resolved his “Venetian temptation.” Finally, it is clear that Jean-François Copé feels emboldened by evaluating the new opportunities offered to the parliamentary majority by the constitutional reform of July 2008: the text discussed in a public session will be that of the Commission and not the Government’s, except for budget bills, social security financing bills, and constitutional revisions. In the event of a provision contested by the Government and voted on in commission, the latter will have to, in a sense, renegotiate and convince parliamentarians of its own majority to revert to the initial version of the project. This will undoubtedly fuel many ambitions on many subjects of discontent.
There are plenty of such subjects: carbon tax, local taxation, not to mention the Mitterrand controversy, and, despite the difficult-to-understand tension provoked by the mention of the subject at the Elysée, the possible “election” of Jean Sarkozy as head of the EPAD. Recent polls confirm this: according to “Le Figaro” on October 15 and 16, 52% of French people say they are “affected” by this matter while 68% of them “discussed it as a priority this week with those around them.” Less cautious is the consultation organized by “Le Parisien-Aujourd’hui en France”: “64% are opposed to Jean Sarkozy’s candidacy for the presidency of the Public Establishment for the Development of La Défense.” We will discreetly skip over the less than glorious headlines by the foreign press on this issue. Although one can understand Nicolas Sarkozy’s annoyance, as he rightly knows he is “personally targeted” in this matter, the President of the Republic should accept to hear and understand what cannot be reproached to the “good family man”: in prosperous economic times, when there is, so to speak, enough to go around, this “election” would have gone completely unnoticed. However, it is different in a time of crisis where, despite the authorities’ objections, it is perceived as a provocation, particularly among the young. “The curse of the two years” as Nicolas Sarkozy suggests? Or the old tradition of humans towards the power in whose caressing hands they let themselves, unconsciously, slowly slip and get trapped?
Let us turn to Plutarch: Who will be, in this matter, the “true friend” of Nicolas Sarkozy? The one who dares to tell him what he may not necessarily want to hear to bring him back to “logos,” to reason. “It is above all the happy man who needs friends with straightforward speech capable of curbing his excesses,” teaches the philosopher because “happiness rarely goes with a cool head.” But he specifies: “those who dare to truthfully speak to their friends instead of being complacent are but a handful,” thereby inviting those around him not to “confuse the friend with the flatterer.” And the Greek thinker adds that it is up to the “true friend” to choose the “kairos,” the moment that holds within it the opportune occasion to speak, to convince, and also to show how to go about it. The political moment, it will be agreed, could not be more opportune.
