Exit Chirac

For nearly two generations, Jacques Chirac has been a fixture of the French landscape. Tomorrow, barring a bolt from the blue, the president is going to announce his exit in a television address. His retirement is hardly unexpected, but it will clear the air for the battle among would-be successors who all deplore the state in which he is leaving France. 

Chirac, who entered government a junior minister under President de Gaulle in 1967, is expected to sketch the legacy that he will bequeath when he steps down in May after 12 years in office. He will talk about the way that he has guided a troubled country into the age of globalisation and asserted France's voice in the world.

Chirac's rosy view of his time in the Elysée Palace, is not shared by a people who regard him as a likeable old rogue and statesman but a poor, even disastrous, manager of the nation.
        
   
   

France seems, however, willing to forget the unresolved allegations of sleaze that have dogged Chirac, 74, since his days as Paris Mayor from 1977-95. 

The President is not expected to endorse Nicolas Sarkozy, 52, the protégé-turned-adversary who is running for the presidency at the head of his neo-Gaullist movement, the Union for a Popular Majority. "Chirac's departure is the end of la chiraquie," one of his loyalists said of the man who has dominated the centre-right political scene since 1981.

Sarkozy and the other leading contenders -- Ségolène Royal, the Socialist, and Francois Bayrou, of the centrist Union for French Democracy -- are promising to reverse the economic decline, social tension and low morale that have dogged France in Chirac's tenure.

All agree that Chirac failed to fulfill his 1995 campaign promise to "heal the social fracture" and restore prosperity. During a term in which the opposition Socialists governed for five years and Chirac's team for seven,  France has slipped from fifth to about 13th place in wealth per capita. Unemployment remains among Europe's highest.

Sarkozy has the hardest task of breaking with the past since he has served as Interior Minister and Deputy Prime Minister uner Mr Chirac for most of the past five years.

The candidates and France at large credit Chirac with three main achievements: standing up to the United States by opposing the Iraq invasion; recognising France's anti-semitic crimes in world war two, and opposing racism and political extremism.  The low-points were losing parliament to the opposition in 1997, the repeated abandonment of reforms in the face of  strikes and protests, the 2002 election in which Jean-Marie Le Pen came second and the race riots and voters' rejection of the French-inspired European constitution in 2005.

Bayrou, who served in Gaullist-led Governments of the 1990s before breaking with the Chirac camp, said yesterday: "In foreign affairs, Chirac has been an honourable voice, even a great one when it was necessary for France." Domestically, Chirac had done his best to smooth over discord among the French, he said.

Fondness for the tall, genial politician seems to be reviving as he nears the end. A Paris Match poll this week showed that he was rated favourably by 56 percent. In the 2002 election, he won only 19 percent of the first-round vote.

François Baroin, 41, Minister for Overseas Territories and one of Chirac's most loyal supporters, said yesterday: "There is going to be nostalgia for him because he has been in tune with the French and there is a sort of tenderness towards him. Even if they want to turn the page, they really like him."

Indulgence for Chirac seems likely to extend to prosecutors. Senior politicians say that, despite the end of Chirac's presidential immunity, he is unlikely to be pursued over corruption cases stemming from his mayoral years. These have ended in the past three years with suspended prison sentences for several former Chirac lieutenants.

   

Chirac, who used to be nicknamed Bulldozer, has suffered from  recent biographies that depict him as a brutal and incompetent politician. In his best-selling Tragedy of the President, Franz-Olivier Giesbert said:  "By cowardice as much as by blindness, (Chirac) persists in pursuing policies, which, for over 20 years, have been leading the country to ruin." In a book this month, Jean-Francois Probst, who worked as Mr Chirac's fixer in the city hall, said: "All his life, Chirac has shoved others into the wayside while playing the innocent. He loves killing." Probst also paints Chirac's mayoral years as a time of lavish, unaccountable easy money. 

Chirac has countered all the bad publicity with a book of interviews with Pierre Péan, a journalist, in which he casts himself as a humane statesman with a deep belief in saving the environment and opposing the excesses of American-led  globalisation. "What people will remember, I have no idea," Chirac says of his legacy in Stranger in the Elysée. "I am not really a vain person. What I would like them to remember is that .. France is, or tries to be, a country of tolerance."

[Chirac, right, with Prime Minister Pompidou and Edouard Balladur, circa 1969]

Comments

[Maggie]

So, a deal has been struck then, he can now step down without fear of prosecution, obviously , this is why he has decided not to run again as some thought he may.
Unbelievable .!
Why are the French so apathetic about corruption within their government ?

[Dominique]

Maggie :

1/Playing with rules is a cultural habit in France and having a president playing with rules means the french have a president "like them". Same for sex!

2/ probably "they" also prefer corrupted politicians to criminal ones (difficult choice isn't it?)

3/ The definition of the word "corruption" is very cultural. French people often think that politicians who claim that they are "pure" are lying at best, stupid at worst. If you consider the pathetic Lewinsky affair (what was the problem?) or the criminal WMD affair (were are they?), the "free airline tickets" affair is not such a big deal.

4/ "Anglo Saxons" (as a stereotype), often consider "different cultural habits" being "corruption". Open up! english rules are not universal.

5/ For the rest, the French get the president they choose! same with Americans isnt'it?

[christopher muir]

No doubt that there must be many, many contradictory sides to Chirac's character. There may be more scary skeletons yet in the palace cupboard. To me, one of the great mysteries is how he has managed to keep so trim over the years. The revealed Fauchon delicatessen excesses, which were exposed years ago, seem to have had no effect on his weight. And the French public have been spared tiresome footage of their president having morning jogs around his grounds, an exercise regime so beloved of attention-seeking Anglo-Saxon politicians. I have no evidence, but I think that he uses an indoor rowing machine.

[Ros]

I really don't think he could manage a "rowing machine", especially since his "slight" stroke!
Maybe an indoor cycle doing gentle pedalling ?

[Actu75]

Quite a comprehensive summ up of Chirac's legacy. I largely agree with Dominique. However if only 5% of the dirty tricks played against the investigations judges in charge of Chirac and the RPR's affairs had been revealed in the UK they surely would have caused the fall of any government.

[colin grayson]

chirac gets approval because he opposed the americans in iraq ? what else would anyone do when they saw their cosy deals with hussein broken up!!!
where does principle come into this ?

[SHISHI]

You have to know that even if President Chirac has been so much competent in home affairs, he was our President, and no one would dare to judge him. He was at the head of the state !!!
You are really british! Always criticizing the others, especially the French! Why don't you take care of your political affairs, and your prime minister who will resign in a few month for the minister of the Exchiquer! It wouldn't happen in France, because in France the prime minister is nothing (except if we are in cohabitation).
Who would dare judge the queen ! Nobody, it's the same in France.
Moreover, in France, all the ancient President of the République (who are still living) are member of the Constitutional Council for life, so Chirac is untouchable.
Ps : sorry for the spelling mistakes!

[quintal]

the french guy above is biased. I'm french too and his opinion is not the one of the majority. People here think that chirac could and should be prosecuted, but probably wont because the politicians are corrupt and sly, so they avoid retribution to their rotten practices. Chirac being one of the most prominent liars, there is a general feeling that he will avoid trouble although everyone knows and says he deserves it.
So in effect it's an expression of discouragement towards the corruption of the political class : we know they are all rotten but we know we can't do much about it.
"Tous pourris" as we say here.

[Frank Schnittger]

I thought Chirac kept fit by having regular, almost daily, 5 minute trysts?

When people elect a Government they want competence. When they elect a President, they want someone they can identify with, who feels like them, and acts as they imagine they would do in a similar situation.

If a people like bending the rules, taking advantage of any little privileges that come its way, and is not averse to a little grandstanding every now and then, then so too will they like a President like that.

Moral probity and doctrinal purity is for Churchmen. Artists are of little use if they are total conformists as they then do not challenge popular perceptions. Statesmen are expected to have a little devil in them because few are totally happy with the hand dealt them by fate. Someone who triumphs against adversity best represents popular sentiment as most people have the odds of success stacked against them.

That is why all the candidates are portraying themselves as outsiders taking on the establishment, although almost all come from that establishment and some - Royal and Bayrou - represent little change from what the establishment currently stands for.

Clinton was the great emoter, expressing instinctively how most people felt about things - that is why he was so hated by the moralists who are concerned with how people SHOULD feel, rather than with how they actually feel.

If Chirac truly is a Stateman, he should rise above past disagreements and endorse his UMP successor, Sarkozy. However his vanity will probably lead him to project himself as the Leader for all Frenchmen – a combination of all the candidates now vying for the Presidency.

That is his conceit. He was never much more than a political ward boss adept at shafting his opponents. But in his vanity he imagines himself as the visionary leader of a world power – and in that vanity he most truly represented his people!

[Alan Klaw]

Re Exit Chirac; Say what one will President Chirac's legacy will include such qualities as style and grace .These seem rather rare today .They would seem necessary although perhaps not sufficient with so much pandering in the media to lowest common denominator in U.S.culture ,politics and sport.Thank you as always for your fresh ,informative analysis. Alan

[Dominique]

Quintal : I am afraid you are very biased. "Tous pourris" is the very message we hear from Le Pen since 30 years. Gess what : being a liar is part of the president's job. Grow up and stop blaming reality for your frustration (Let me know if you identify a head of state who never lied)

Let me also remind you that Chirac was elected with 82% in 2002 with the nickname "supermenteur (superliars) and the slogan "plutot l'escroc que le facho". Obviously, the uge majority of the french agree with what i said before (at least in 2002)and prefer liars. You probably belong to the 18%.

[Maggie G]

Very funny, Frank! I laughed out loud.

And your next three paragraphs explain some of the things I was just wondering about. You seem to agree with Dominique. I couldn't understand how they can distrust their government so much, yet put up with so many abuses from it. But you have made a distinction between what they expect from a government, and what they expect from a president. Maybe this is where I was confused. I will have to think about it.

But then Quintal, just above you, has a different point of view.

[rocket]

People like Chirac are the living proof that France still has a long way to go on the road to becoming a democracy

[Maggie G]

I sent this message last night (before the one shown above), but it appears it didn't arrive, so here it is again:

Very interesting photos, as usual, Mr Bremner. Where ever did you find the one with the bulging eyes? I would say it clearly doesn't show his better side.

As much as I love to detest Mr Chirac, I have to admit that he does have a congenial side to him, and I think the term 'a likeable old rogue' is a good description of him (at the end of his career). When I listen to comments from the public on the radio, it is clear that they admire him for his stand on the war in Iraq. They feel that he has stood up for France and defended it well. At the same time, the way he handled the Iraq issue has caused millions of Americans to feel intense hostility towards France, and I'm not sure that the French public realize the extent of this hostility.

I heard that interview where Bayrou said that in foreign affairs Chirac had been an honourable voice for France and that, domestically, he had done his best to smooth over discord. I thought those comments reflected rather well on Bayrou – that he chose to be ‘above’ criticizing Chirac (though perhaps it was part of his strategy to appear as a conciliator).

A few months ago there was an interview on the radio with a guy who had covered a lot of elections in France. If I remember correctly, he was not particularly fond of either Chirac or Mitterrand, but he said he had been impressed by small actions by both of them: during one particular election campaign, both of them insisted on returning to Paris every night, no matter where in the country they were campaigning – Mitterrand in order to read a bed-time story to his daughter, and Chirac in order to feed his anorexic daughter, who would not eat for anyone else. This doesn't really prove anything, as even Saddam Hussein was probably a good father in some ways, but all the same, you feel a little more respect for them when you hear stories like this.

The first time I wrote to this blog, in the middle of the CPE crisis a year ago, the very first thing I said was that I couldn't understand why the French distrusted their government SO MUCH. I think it was Mr Carrington who told me that this mistrust is basically merited, that the government DESERVES this visceral distrust from the citizens of the country.

I still find it hard to comprehend how the people can so distrust their leaders. Yet on the other hand, there are so many things they don't mind at all. For a decade or more Mitterrand paid for a luxury apartment for his lover with taxpayers’ money. No problem. The taxpayers don’t mind. Chirac's eighteen years as mayor of Paris was a time of "lavish unaccountable easy money". No problem for the taxpayers. They don’t mind. Jacques Médicine runs off to South America with millions in his pocket? No problem. They don’t mind – he was a good mayor. All the corruption that went on when Chirac was mayor of Paris? No problem. They don’t think they’ll bother to pursue him when he loses his immunity.

We even have people on this blog who say that ‘playing with the rules is a cultural tradition in France’, and they LIKE having leaders who play with the rules ‘like them’. And they say the definition of honesty is a ‘cultural thing’.

And then there was the posting ‘France Spies on Itself’, where Mr Bremner said that ‘no other democracy runs a domestic spying service on this scale, and few would tolerate it’, but that the French found it ‘normal’. It is hard to understand – the French distrust their leaders far more than we do, yet they tolerate far more abuse from them.

The only thing that gets their goat is any kind of reform that touches their ‘droits acquis’. The tiniest suggestion of change in this area, and they are out in the street in their thousands.

So really, how can we condemn Chirac for the corruption that has gone on under him? He didn’t invent it, he wasn’t the first or the last dishonest French politician, and the people don’t even consider it very bad. As long as the French voters are willing to tolerate this kind of behaviour, we shouldn’t be surprised that French politicians behave this way, should we?

PS I just looked back at the posting “France Spies on Itself”, and there was this comment from Luludi that I thought was very good, but nobody commented on it at the time because they were busy making comments on the new Times format. He said, “The French state has always been very intusive but (maybe because of that) there is a great and longlasting propensity to civil disobedience and mistrust towards the government. If you made a poll of western democracies I am quite sure that France would have the top level of mistrust towards its politicians.”

[Ros]

How ridiculous for the "Today" programme this morning to choose Edith Cresson to criticise (or admire - it wasn't very clear) Chirac - she was Mitterand's friend and only Prime Minister (quite hopeless) for a few months if I remember rightly.
Last night again on TF1 - Bayrou stood up for a Chirac - he really did it in a correct sort of way in spite of being a bit ambiguous!

[Edward Johns]

"For the rest, the French get the president they choose! same with Americans isnt'it? "
Hi Dominique,
should that read they get the President they deserve?
At the same time,aren't criminality and corruption the same thing? Perhaps there are cultural differences?

[stuart turner]

For all his misdemeanours, they are trivial when compared to the crimes perpetrated by Bush and Bliar.

A simple fact!

[Dominique]

Edward : "aren't criminality and corruption the same thing?"

I am afraid not. Corruption is about steeling money, crime is about steeling lives. I never thought i would have to explain that...

Concerning cultural differences regarding corruption, please note that many french considere American president GW.Bush as being completly corrupted. Being elected with less voices than his counterpart on one side, and recieving so openly the support of entire oil industry from texas andsaudi Arabia on the other is what we call here "being corrupted". More, the electoral system based on the idea that "the one who has more money gets elected" is the very opposite to what we consider to be a democracy.

But as i am an openminded person, i suppose these are american cultural habits...

As for Maggie not anderstanding why the french usually accept such presidents, why don't you ask the british people why they have been accepting "Lords" for so long? why do they accept tax payer money to go the a royal family so much? why do they accept a prime minister lying about WMD and make a war out of it? Were did M.Blair go for hollyday? Berlusconi, the man with the cleanest hands on earth? what did he get in return?

Come on all, please! give us a break with the "pure" democracy.. It never existed and never will...

Democracy is not just "playing by the rules". It is also "what you actually do once you are in office".

[JuanE]

If France isnt a democracy then I dont know which country is!

[Ros]

Juane, All the Scandinavian countries, I should say !

[Maggie G]

Dominique,

I did not say I didn't understand why the French accepted such presidents, I said
"It is hard to understand – the French distrust their leaders far more than we do, yet they tolerate far more abuse from them."

And you answered: Come on all, please! give us a break with the "pure" democracy.. It never existed and never will...
Democracy is not just "playing by the rules". It is also "what you actually do once you are in office".

For your information, Dominique, I just looked up the definition of "democracy" in the dictionary:

A form of government in which political power resides in all the people and is exercised by them directly (pure democracy), or is given to elected representatives (representative democracy), with each citizen sharing equally in political privilege and duty, and with his right to do so protected by free elections and other guarantees.

So really, Dominique, your reply doesn't seem to have any connection at all to what I said.

But at least you didn't tell me to 'grow up' this time, and I'm grateful for that.

[Edward Johns]

"Edward : "aren't criminality and corruption the same thing?"

I am afraid not. Corruption is about steeling money, crime is about steeling lives. I never thought i would have to explain that..."
Hi Dominique,
without wanting to be pedantic, both of my French dictionaries show that crime includes murder but encompasses all immoral acts.
Aside from that, are you arguing that theft of property is perfectly acceptable ?
We agree on one point though--the likeliehood of The US president being to a degree corrupt!!

[JuanE]

I correct my post then Ros (im VERY ignorant about scandinavian countries), but if I look at Maggie's posted definition, France is a democracy- so i don't believe it has a long road to become one.

[Peter Mason]

Dominique,

Perhaps there is a linguistic as well as a cultural misunderstanding here. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Corruption thus:-
"adjective: 1 willing to act dishonestly in return for money or personal gain. 2 evil or morally depraved".

Also, in most countries matters such as accepting bribes are criminalised.

Having said that, when I worked in a department headed by a French Director who invariably wanted laws on immigration etc. ignored all the non-French staff got into the habit of adding a caveat to their memos indicating their resistance to becoming criminals. So I'm not surprised by yor comments. In fact the whole exchange merey confirms my view that the EU's claim of "Unity in Diversity" is Tommy-rot.