Individualism is not taken lightly in the United States. It is indeed something that an average American detests above all else, especially when he is forced to seek it against his will: Washington’s intervention in the internal affairs of his state.
In France, it depends. The Airbus case provides a sorry example. Every French person in the country is ready to revolt against the omnipresence of the state. The proliferation of repressive legislation on just about any aspect of our daily lives means that it is now incumbent on each of us to think quietly before speaking out loud. The Chinese language is therefore right to refer to France by the double ideogram for the “country of law.” Tax pressure and administrative power are regularly denounced by our compatriots. Not to mention the habit of reassigning public sector incumbents to strategic positions in the private sector, solely on the merit that they have not failed. But does political loyalty warrant a guarantee of competence in business management? In the Airbus case, and according to confessions by a former Prime Minister to “Le Monde,” it was even necessary to “reassure our German partners” about the validity of the French state’s presence in the initial shareholders’ pact. This goes to show it was not well-received. And with reason: in an interview with the same newspaper, Louis Gallois reveals the existence of an agreement signed in 2000 by Airbus leaders which previously envisioned control by the Hamburg factory of the A320 chain against the assembly in France of 70% of the A380. An “agreement never respected,” according to its new president.
Let us add the monumental management errors of some of its leaders, who, it must be reminded, came from the public sector, and the profits made from the sale of shares before the fall in EADS stock prices. But the paradox is yet to come: after all these setbacks, the only obsession of those who unfortunately might face difficult times for their employment is to implore… the intervention of the State! The president of Airbus attempts in vain to explain the need to gradually rid itself of this cumbersome guardianship to evolve towards “more normal governance.” That is to say, in accordance with the competitiveness challenges against the American aeronautics giant. It is regrettable to wait for the drama of 10,000 employees to initiate a debate on the so typically French interference of the public sphere in the management of our companies. This atmosphere of urgency and the legitimate safeguarding of employee interests may nevertheless encourage electoral bidding. Under these conditions, it is uncertain whether the presidential elections will be of any interest for the rescue of Airbus.
