He was said to be physically weakened, if not politically dead. Drawing all the consequences from a presidential practice marked by exclusivism, some members of the Balladur Committee, in charge of the constitutional reform project of July 2008, even wished to abolish his function and remove article 20 of the Constitution of the Fifth Republic, thus formally signing the birth certificate of the Sixth Republic: a presidential regime in the strict sense, devoid of a Prime Minister. At the National Assembly, the Law Commission proposed, in a similar vein, to relieve him of the “responsibilities of national defense” by suppressing the second sentence of the first paragraph of article 21. And just in case, later in the same paragraph, in the unlikely but never impossible event that the officeholder showed some resistance, it was reminded that he was quietly tasked with “implementing the decisions made under article 15 concerning national defense.” No need, it was explained in essence, for a fuse at Matignon: the multiple circuit breakers of the formidable presidential energy would somehow compensate for the risk of short circuits!
It is therefore with an interest mixed with curiosity that the French have observed François Fillon’s return to the political forefront. In less than a month, the Prime Minister twice assumed a role that he was no longer suspected of being able to play: on November 16, 2009, in front of particularly agitated Mayors of France, he calmly explained two controversial changes of the five-year term in place of the President of the Republic: the territorial reform and the reform of the professional tax. Then, on December 4, he also replaced Nicolas Sarkozy at study days organized by the Montaigne Institute on the theme “What does it mean to be French?”
Invoked by the Elysee, the diplomatic agenda of the head of state will undoubtedly not manage to mask this double presidential “elusion.” At the risk of causing deep discomfort among the electorate, including that of the UMP, and this, a few months before regional deadlines that are expected to be – a mild understatement – difficult for the majority.
Two absences rendered more sensitive by the acuteness of the circumstances. By refusing to honor with his presence – and to face – the Congress of Mayors of France, Nicolas Sarkozy feigned to forget that the first magistrates of municipalities remain – despite all affairs worthy of Clochemerle – the privileged interlocutors of the population. It is not enough “to go every week to the provinces” to stay in touch with the French if, on the rugged terrains on which they evolve, only wide, marked alleys bordered with flowery embankments are favored by presidential travels. A proximity claimed by a head of state now seemingly tempted by a capitalization of major international meetings deemed politically more profitable. A return to the “good old traditions” of 1958?
In the midst of the debate on national identity, a theme that “excites” the French according to François Fillon’s -innocent?- expression, the Elysian “deficiency” at the Montaigne Institute constitutes a second blunder: the apparent embarrassment of the Elysee supports the idea of an electoral strategy, which the enthusiasm of internet users – admittedly both the worst and the best – allowed to refute. Exegetes will no doubt enjoy discussing the Prime Minister’s hint at the “danger of not debating.”
The political risk is not nonexistent. Contrary to the customs of the Fifth Republic, it appears, after two and a half years in office, that the Elysee drains more than Matignon. And endows the host of the rue de Varenne with a large reserve of sympathy, potentially transforming in voters’ minds into the idea that he, less flamboyant but more consistent in his effort, has ultimately not failed. “There is no debate more vital than today’s,” launched François Fillon during his recent address. He was evidently savoring the real symbolic significance of his statement.
