Slashdot Mirror
Conservative Sarkozy Wins Presidency of France
Reader reporter tips us to a story just up at the NYTimes reporting that the tough-talking conservative candidate Nicolas Sarkozy has won election as the president of France. His opponent, Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal, the first woman to get as far as the runoff in a presidential contest in France, has conceded defeat. The vote went 53% to Sarkozy and the turnout was a remarkable (by American standards) 85% of registered voters. Sarkozy is seen as a divisive figure for his demand that immigrants learn Western values (and the French language).
I'm not entirely sure why the France bashing continues. Frankly it appeared that they were right regarding Iraq. France is certainly one of the greatest allies this country has had, in fact we wouldn't be this large had Napolean not sold us the Louisiana Purchase to pay for his war with England. If anything we owe them quite a bit and their only crime is that they are just as patriotic to their country as we are to ours.
Now with that being said, do you know why there are trees on the Champs D'Elysees? So the Germans can march in the shade!
Just because the person you disagree with wins doesn't mean that the system is broken. I don't recall hearing a single complaint about the French electoral system. Maybe the conservative's ideas actually appealed to more voters.
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Actually, if someone has to be compared to George W. Bush it really is Nicolas Sarkozy. France is now as polarized as the US was after the Bush 2004 victory.
Many liberals in France were not conviced by Segolene Royal at all, just like many liberals in the US weren't conviced by John Kerry. They did not vote for a candidate but against someone else. The "lesser of two evil" syndrome that is so familiar in US politics.
Sarkozy won, but just like George W. Bush in 2004, the people that did not vote for him (half of the population) really hate him and what he stands for (pro big corporation, anti-immigration etc.).
He now is president of a deeply divided country... we all saw how well that worked out for the US.
You speak as if the politicians are creating the divisions, rather than being the manifestation of them.
Countries are divided. That's how it is. If voting one way creates a relatively peaceful union where differences are worked out politely and within the system, and voting the other way creates a fractured country full of acrimony and bad feelings, then one side is clearly a bad loser (and that's more dangerous to democracy than you might think, as the essense of democracy is to have the losers accept their loss, not crown the winners).
And if that is the case, the side that is being the poor losers and choosing to tear apart the democracy rather than accept loss is the side that, when they win, produces the relatively peaceful government. The side that, when they win, produces "polarization" is the more democratic side. (Being in a Democracy means your side loses sometimes. That's life.)
Take that as you will. I've deliberately not name names. For one thing, it's never a choice between total chaos or total harmony, but I'd be confident that taken as trends, this point stands.
Insisting that immigrants learn the language and culture isn't divisive. It's the best way for them to fit into their new society and succeed. How far would Sarkozy have goten if he only spoke Hungarian?
Cheers,
Dave
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Now I'm depressed...
Sarkozy has made a point of highlighting the French love for Coca-Cola, jeans and American movies; concluding from this that he would be inclined to support Dubyah's policies is a stone's throw too far. Sarkozy is neither stupid nor inclined to political suicide. He has promised the USA friendship, but immediately made clear that the Americans would have to accept "that friends can think differently". I think Sarkozy knows very well that the Bush administration is allergic to constructive criticism, but that doesn't matter any more. Sarkozy's real problem is finding common ground with the next American president, and he may well opt for backing the future winner early, instead of associating himself with the loser in office. For example, Sarkozy's position on Iraq is not that far distant from the position the next US president is likely to have, i.e. phased withdrawal.
Something to think about though. You have a country with a female Minister of Defense and an active Communist Party and they won't elect a female? So Hillary's chances rank somewhere below slim and none?The French communist party is now a mere shadow of what it used to be.
Royal's problem is not that she is female, but that she is a poor campaigner. Her starting position was not that bad, her selection as the socialist candidate generated some genuine enthusiasm. But then she blew it. She was gaffe-prone throughout the campaign, her political platform was a collection of crowd-pleasers, her statements on policy consisted mostly of baked air, and in the decisive last phase she resorted to blatant scare tactics.
On the other hand, Americans could do worse than adopt the French election system. A genuine, fair two-round election, an 85% voter turn-out, a clear majority for the winner, and the election over at election night --- not bad, isn't it?
they'll never even come close to an economic superpower.
Japan did it, and so can the French. They just have to give up on socialism.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."