French qualms over the Sarko show

President Sarkozy is off to Rome to be blessed by the Pope tomorrow. His absence will afford slight relief in a week in which Super-Sarko has broken his own record for self-promotion. He is, we learn, highly pleased with the way that his romance with Carla Bruni, a model-singer, has played out since he launched it from Disneyland Paris last weekend.

"It doesn't annoy me at all," he told reporters who asked him about the media frenzy over his new girl-friend yesterday.

Sarko's mise-en-scène of his new liaison has been dissected from every angle. Psychiatrists, sociologists and movie directors are pronouncing on the breath-taking ego of the republican monarch. Claude Chabrol, the movie-maker who has spent his career chronicling the dark side of the bourgeoisie, opined today that the Sark-opera is partly due to the President's small stature. "That has shaped his spirit. He says: 'I know that I'm little but I'm a smart guy. I am going to prove it to everyone and be loved by everyone'."

[picture: Sarkozy dresses for lunch before outing with Bruni on Saturday. From today's Match]

Chabrol was talking to Libération which devoted its first five pages to "President Bling Bling." It said that Sarko risked descending into "Berlusconian comedy" and it noted that his unabashed showing-off offended France's old upper classes. "Sarkozy's lack of modesty is incompatible with good manners," it said. But it is not just the lower orders who are relishing the latest episode of the palace soap opera. A couple of friends in senior state posts told me that Sarko-Bruni was the talk of their offices on Monday.   

A interesting sign of backlash to the Sarko show came today from the journalists of Paris Match. Owned by Arnaud Lagardère, the president's friend,  the celebrity and news weekly has become the palace organ. The journalists' union, which represents 80 percent of staff, rebelled over today's 17-page cover spread of photographs of the president at work and play, taken by Bettina Rheims, a photographer to the stars.

The scribes complained that they had not been allowed to write any words to run with the flattering pictures of the statesman and put them in perspective. "We had no editorial choice. They imposed a ready-made subject on us," the union told Agence France-Presse. "In France the president chooses his photographer."

The French media are eager to avoid offending the monarch so they have been largely laying off a track that has been taken by their foreign colleagues. This is the remarkably rich and diverse love life that Ms Bruni has squeezed into her 39 years.

Le Canard Enchaîné, the satirical weekly, today nailed Libération for a bit of uncharacteristic self-censorship. This involved a now infamous remark that Ms Bruni made about her love life to le Figaro last February. "Monogamy bores me stiff. I am monogamous from time to time. Love lasts a long time, but ardent desire only for two or three weeks." Libération, along with other media, decided cut out part of the original quote, which said: "I am monogamous from time to time but I prefer polygamy and polyandry".

Since the President met Ms Bruni in late November, his three weeks would soon appear to be up.

Here's a new video from Closer magazine of the famous Disney outing and this is today's Libération.

Comments

[Daisy]

What will it take for the French press to stand up to this man? Are they that spineless or muzzled? What does this say about the state of democracy in France? A free press is a vital element of democracy.

Though I would love to live in Paris, I am incredibly glad I can turn on my evening news and get real news and not be bombarded with staged self-promoting photo-ops of that toad and his floozie-du-jour.

[Rocket]

Daisy

What will it take for the French press to stand up to this man? Are they that spineless or muzzled?

Both!

Always have been always will be.

[jopo]

Daisy - I live in France and I NEVER, BUT NEVER turn on the evening news.

[Dominique]

Daisy,

"What will it take for the French press to stand up to this man? Are they that spineless or muzzled? What does this say about the state of democracy "

You obviously don't live in France. There is not a single day without having the press, radio, television, internet, criticizing evering single finger move of Sarkozy.

He has a Rolex? what a bad taste! he divorces? that's spin! he goes with Bruni? it's just because of Kadafi! He recieved Kadafi? what a shame! The Spaniards recieve Kadafi? they are right, Sarko is wrong! he has sunglasses? he looks like Berlusconi! He goes to Disneyland? he lacks good taste! His foreign policy is pro american? what a shame! he should do like Chirac! He recieves Arab leaders? what a shame! he does like Chirac!

The truth is that the press doesn't give us a break!! Liberation today made 6 pages for criticizing Sarko's affair with Carla Bruni!!! I am exhausted after reading Marianne during 10 minutes! If that is serious politics, then i am the pope!

The neverending sensless critics against Sarko's habits and taste serve him! We just do not care what he wears and who he has sex with!

The press no longer wants to inform us. Every single paper is now only interested in "people". Sarko just feeds the "beast", and the beast is stupid.

It is not a question of criticizing Sarko, as they do not stop doing it. It is a question of criticizing him for the right thing! And franckly, i do not see any better critic in foreign papers...same old trash, busy looking for Cecilia or Carla...

Political journalism is dead. Sensless critic is alive and well.

[rockinred]

So he's off to see the Pope...just who will be blessing whom?

[Jorg Andersen]

The Paris Match photographs are indeed extraordinary. It is impossible to imagine what Charles de Gaulle would have made of such megalomaniac self-exhibition. It is like Versailles and Louis XIV, the Sun King. Match even a close-up picture of the royal bed...just like the privileged courtiers who attended the king getting up!

[qwerty]

I, like, totally agree with Dominique on this one. Sarkozy is taking the whole French press for a ride, whether they're servile or whether they're yapping.

[christopher muir]

The latest media excitement about Sarko’s new romance can’t be all that uplifting for the hallowed office of the presidency. To allow that seat of power to become a vehicle for twenty-four hour news cycle celebrity gossip could make a mockery of France’s traditional institutions. To be the 21st century people’s president surely doesn’t mean that he has to become potentially a YouTube favourite. The current adventure might run deeper than we know, belonging to a cunning political agenda. Claude Chabrol knows a thing or two about stories that acquire unhappy twists and turns in their evolvement; hopefully he’s not got any premonitions on this particular subject. Will Carla Bruni still be relevant enough to sing “Happy Birthday Dear Mr President” on January 28th?

[peter kinsley www.peterkinsley.com]

The French Press and TV are gutless because they do not force a change in the law about reporting on the private lives of the high and mighty. Thus Mitterrand got away with keeping two homes going at the taxpayers expense (theft) and protecting war criminals for 50 years; and Chirac has yet to be put on trial for whatever he managed to filch from the public purse. Where are the investigative reporters in France? Two young Washington Post newspapermen brought Nixon down. Fleet Street put Jeffrey Archer and Jonathan Aitken in jail. TV exposed police racism, filth in hospitals, rotten meat sold to schools, traffic warden scams, nil security at Windsor or the Palace for the Royals, etc., using undercover reporters.
90% of the French Press and TV are like the Portuguese police: useless, and bogged down by their own out of date laws. And doing n o t h i n g to change them!

[Maggie G]

Excellent post, Dominique.

[Rocket]

Read it an weep about your free press in France. It also depends on what you call free. Free to report maybe. Free to openly and deeply criticize and scratch deeper than the surface as those of us who were raised with different expectations rather than soft fluff. I doubt it. It's like when someone here in France tells me all is being done to solve a problem and it still takes forever and a day.

Here's a good link and a quote from that link.

http://tinyurl.com/29pxw9

"La rédaction n'a pas du tout apprécié que Match s'incline ainsi devant les exigences d'une photographe choisie par le sujet de son reportage. "Ce genre de choses se fait pour des sujets 'people', pas pour des sujets d'information politique", regrette une rédactrice. "Ce qui nous arrive serait impensable aux Etats-Unis, par exemple."

PS. Daniel Strohl I read La société de défiance: comment le modèle social français s'autodétruit. Marvelous book!

Now I'm reading a book by Lou Dobbs on how the American model is destroying itself.

Here's the link

http://tinyurl.com/2mc2bs

Different countries but many of the same problems. Immigration, outsourcing, arrogant politicians often on the take etc.

[dot king]

Agree with all that is said above - Sarkozy is leadng France by the nose with the collusion of the media, though some are doing it tongue-in-cheek to be a bit fair.

Is no-one else perplexed by His Majesty's choice of guest on the Papal visit? Jean-Marie Bigard is just about the most vulgar and lowest-common-denominator-type "comic" in France.
Is he also trying to take a rise out of "His Holiness"?
Just whom does this man respect?

[Emlyn]

The press "silly season" used to be in summer. It seems to have been moved to prepare the French for a merry Christmas. All this stuff about Sarkozy is utter trivia. Think yourselves lucky there's nothing to worry about for the present: the press will soon let us know when there is.

[Mauvezin]

Chirac has yet to be put on trial for whatever he managed to filch from the public purse.
*****************
Don't care about France !
Chirac don't send french troops to Irak !
Those anglosaxons are insufferable !

[Actu75]

Largely agree with Dominique. However medias mostly reflect public opinions and political balance. Political critics against Sarkozy are low fro two reasons: he was -still recently should it be reminded- elected with a large support, and most of his political choices -excepted the bouclier fiscal or the Khadafi show- receive the same amount of support -Grenelle de l'Environnement, Traité Européen, Régime spéciaux etc-.
Medias, excepted the alternative and small scaled medias linked with the left of the left- hardly find a convincing "angle d'attaque".
So we're left with his bling bling side (truly a problem though when it comes with backstage decisions) and the public side of his private life.
Collusion certainly fits to Paris Match last cover (better late than never unions finally contested), not that most of the Sarko Show coverage.

[John Gregory Flinn]

"...I am incredibly glad I can turn on my evening news and get real news ..."

DAISY - where is that then?

"busy looking for... Carla..."

DOMINIQUE - (on a lighter note), that's Smiley in John le Carré's novel....sorry!
Yes I agree with MAGGIE G - good post.
It seems Charles' overtures (to the French press) about opening up discussion of the personal lives of the nation's 'leading lights' is working!

[John Styx]

Jorg, I'm not sure what your allusion to De Gaulle means. He certainly was compared to the Sun King by "Le Canard enchaîné" in his time.

[Dominique]

John Greg Flinn,

"It seems Charles' overtures (to the French press) about opening up discussion of the personal lives of the nation's 'leading lights' is working! "

unfortunatly yes. Humanism is dead! Long live to stupidity and vulgarity!

Have you seen the canadian movie "Les invasions barbares" from Denys Arcand? We are swimming in it!

[Valentin]

Agree with Dominique's first post.

Being rather rightwing and pro Sarko, still I would love to hear serious critics on serious topics instead of this media frenzy and reactions to it.
Sarko himself NEEDS real opposition both in parliament and in the press and society, when there's a serious reason.
This permanent superficial critic (like the Bigard thing Dot tries to feed us with) doesn't help his opposers, and doesn't help him: he's not really challenged, alas (if we don't count a certain Café de Flore pseudo philosopher :)) and I don't think that's so good, were it only for the principle. He's not perfect, and I wouldn't want him to think he is, or that he can afford anything.

Unfortunately, press all over the world tend to speak more and more celeb' and shocking news rather than serious investigative or political analysis.
British press and its Royals obsession is a much better example than French press and France presidents.

[dot king]

Valentin, your complaints should then go to Sarkozy himself firstly, because he is the one who is not indulging in any serious politics. The article at the head of this blog is about just that - whether the French are now having "qualms" about just what he's up to. Bloggers are posting on that subject.
If Sarkozy was indulging in any real politics, then we'd be able to comment. But he isn't, he's doing daily knee-jerk exercises in communication and image/virility-boosting.
You are usually so "highminded" (your own word) that I can hardly imagine that you think JM Bigard a suitable guest for an audience with the Pope.
Did you see "Le Grand Journal" hier soir? (Maybe it's too "lowminded" for you.) The sound of JMB's one-man show (immonde) was superimposed on images of the Vatican as if he was doing his show in the courtyard. It summed the ludicrous situation up quite admirably.
If you want people to comment on His Majesty's political activities, then you'd better get him to engage in some.
I'm no royalist either, but if you think the British press can be blamed for its royal trivia obsession, then it looks as if the French press is going the same way.
Haah! Sigh, I blame the journalists :)

[thinknoworpaylater]

All this is really media froth but its more than that. As others have remarked its a great distraction from the real issues. Media reports dont simply reflect public opinion they shape it by filling the space that would otherwise be available for serious discussion. Theres more discussion on this blog than in the media. Actually in the Sunday Times there have been items on the unions and special regimes, on Sunday opening for shops etc. Unfortunately what we are mainly discussing on this blog is the subtext oreports on Sarkos private life (i.e. how much space it occupies). We are not dicussing his policies any more than the Paris journalists we castigate.

As to how the American Model is destroying itself - it already did that twenty years ago. Goodbye America - at least as it used to be!

[azloon]

[As to how the American Model is destroying itself - it already did that twenty years ago. Goodbye America - at least as it used to be!] TNOPLater

i'm sorry, but if you think western europe will sidestep it's own inevitable decline (i actually think europe's started long before the u.s.'s), you're deluded.

and if you want to argue 'important issues' go to a blog with that stated purpose instead of taking potshots at CB for his choice of material.

france is quite an entertaining places these days, and Charles is picking up on much of it.

CB, don't be bullied by these cultural snobs. they can't let a gossipy piece pass without remarking on how 'above it all" they are.

(i know a number of women who decry the lowbrow content of our People Magazine but can't wait to get to the beauty parlor, or dentist's office, to read it)

[Valentin]

Dot. :)
I usually like Le Grand Journal.
JM Bigard's style is quite "lowminded" IMO.
(no need to jump with joy, here's where our agreeing ends)
I don't think this kind of superposition is fair.
I don't think talkshows are supposed to be fair tho', so I'll just sigh and move on.
I don't think JMB or his presence is signifiant for Sarko's politics. No idea why he was on the trip - maybe behind those gigs hides un grand coeur catholique! :)

If you would like to discuss a serious political subject, then let us know your thoughts on the Discours de Latran.
It can be counted with other great speeches of Sarko's - like the one on May'68 which you so admire :)

[Dominique]

Valentin,

The Discours de Latran is a shame for a president of the republic! I thought you were a staunch supporter of the republican ideal Sarko just killed at the Vatican. Sarko really has no knowledge nor culture, truying to get rid of 200 years of history.

Bigard, love for catholic church are both clearly the officialisation of the end of european humanism and universalism.

Soon, we'll have to watch Sarko being crowned in Reims just like Clovis in 486 after Christ. Or maybe he'll take the crown out of Benedict XVI's hands just like Napoleon?

[dot king]

Valentin, I have no wish to discuss the Discours de Latran, and I have never expressed any opinion about the 1968 speech, neither in defense nor on the attack.
Don't attribute to me things I haven't expressed, that demonstrates your mauvaise foi.
I'm responding to this subject on this blog. I'm giving my opinion on the subject in question, not trying to highjack the subject to my own ends.
As for the talkshows - in general I agree that they aren't meant to be "fair", but "Le Grand Journal" is one that dares to juxtapose the president's sublime (when they can find any) with his ridiculous (alas all too often).

[Valentin]

Dominique,
It seems your reaction is far stronger than even those of the leftwing press :) The Le Monde editorial and column that I've read were much more careful (and the readers' reactions quite a mixed bag).

Maybe Sarko is overdoing it (again)... or maybe the Republic tried to wipe off 2000 years of history.
I still remember the (bit lame) attempt to change the christian calendar with a "republican" one...

Maybe the weight of the Catholic Church had been too heavy throughout the centuries, and the Republic exaggerated the other way. Maybe religion is not an enemy of laïcité. Maybe the discours de Latran was not really about the church, but about the idea of transcendental hope as opposed to the mindless materialism born in the '60s.

In any case, I wouldn't dismiss it so easily. Despite his tics, funny faces and bling-bling provocations Sarko shouldn't be underestimated.

[thinknoworpaylater]

Unified western Europe didn't exist until relatively recently (after the last war).
When America was formed as the USA some hundreds of years ago it had a head start. The unification of Europe is going to continue for some time to come and reports of its decline are greatly exaggerated and certainly premature.

If you think I'm commenting on or criticising CB's material I am not. He is reporting what is going on in the French media quite correctly. I'm not bullying CB nor am I a cultural snob. What CB is presenting is a current picture of the state of French media. I'm just noting that (along with Dominique) Sarko is quite a wizard at media manipulation. Shades of Blair and Alastair Campbell.

And stop appealing to the referee (CB)when somebody kicks you where it hurts. America has ultimately an enormous foreign debt.

Generally I like your observations - intelligent, open, available, in fact I am lousy at emailing and much admire your citing of sites that provide information about various contexts.

As it happens, many writers have been influenced in the UK by the American literature of the last 60 years and in particular the writings of Charles Olson, Ed Dorn, Robert Creeley, the Black Mountain School and the Beats. So I'm not anti-American or anit-French.

Dominique - he doesn't need a crown. He has all the power of a king already. It isn't the crown, it's the system and perhaps the constitution needs to be changed to limit the president's powers.

[Sam Young]

I hope that all you lefty fascists on this blog with your preconceived and predictable opinions are getting used to the idea of having Nicolas Sarkozy as President of France for the next 9.5 years.
Because he will be.
If anyone of you doubts this, and is willing to put their money where their fat mouth is, and put on a bet (minimum 500 euro), then let me know.

[Dominique]

Valentin,

"maybe the Republic tried to wipe off 2000 years of history"

--> It did in fact! For good! A break with poitical religious power is undoubtly for good...

"Maybe the weight of the Catholic Church had been too heavy throughout the centuries,"

--> that's not a "maybe", that's a fact.

" and the Republic exaggerated the other way."

--> exaggerated what? Is there any religion forbidden in France? what are you talking about?

"Maybe religion is not an enemy of laïcité. "

--> I know that. You should tell it to religious leaders (like the pope) who believe the very opposite and still go on fighting against laïcité. Don't reverse things...

"Maybe the discours de Latran was not really about the church, but about the idea of transcendental hope as opposed to the mindless materialism born in the '60s. "

--> So why doing it at the Vatican if it has nothing to do with the curch? A discours held by the president at the vatican about the catholic church is of course meant to be about the church. Some people are blind only because they do not want to see...

More, regarding the idea of transcendental hope, can you please let us know what does it have to do with religion? Are you saying that there is no hope without religion? I am afraid this is exactly what Sarko is up to. And that's scary. Europe is a island of peace in a world of religious wars. I'd like to keep it that way, but i'm afraid Sarko would like Europe (and France) to herald some kind of mad "christian" identity that will undoubtly lead us back to civil and religious wars.

[Lily]

"...he doesn't need a crown. He has all the power of a king already. It isn't the crown, it's the system and perhaps the constitution needs to be changed to limit the president's powers." (thinknoworpaylater)

Exactly!

[Daniel Strohl]

Dominique,

"The former Prime Minister Tony Blair has been received into the Roman Catholic Church" (Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correpondent, The Times).

May be already the first fallout of the "discours du Latran" of our President ...

[Dominique]

"...he doesn't need a crown. He has all the power of a king already. It isn't the crown, it's the system and perhaps the constitution needs to be changed to limit the president's powers." (thinknoworpaylater)

His power is not the problem. Mitterand, Giscard, all of his predecessor did have as many and were not as ridiculous nor vulgar. Constitution is not the problem, people using it sometimes are (and that is the case in all countries).

When i mentionned his desire for a crown, i did not mean political power. He already has political power as he was elected, and that is normal.

I was talking of his desire to change the identity of France. Elisabeth II has a crown and hasn't much political power. Her power his a power of IDENTITY. Sarko does also have this power as he is head of state. Crowns and red mantels are ridiculous. But because he represents France, he should not dress and act like Elisabeth II. That would be as ridiculous on him as it is on her ;=))

But don't reverse things : his political power is legitimate. All the "attributs" he tries to rebuilt (religion and all other kind of thaumarturgic power) are not.

[Valentin]

Dominique:
"It did in fact! For good!"

Well in practice, the French President is more powerful than any constitutional monarch or prime minister today.
Is it ok to wipe off 2000 years of history? Are you quite sure all the state unification and consolidation work means nothing, from Philippe II to Louis IX to Henri IV and Louis XIV ?
That was a stage in French history that fit those times. Times changed, regimes changed, each has its own place and contribution to the present day France.
Tourism and fame France enjoys today are based on art and architecture related to Church and made possible by the Princes. The style and politeness so specific to France, admired by the world, come from l'Ancien Regime, not from the Sans-Culottes! :)

"exaggerated what? Is there any religion forbidden in France?"

I was speaking about 1789 and 1871. Invent a "republican calendar"?! Replace God with a "Supreme Being" - like a republican religion? Did all those priests deserved their martyre, only because they were christians?

"are you saying that there is no hope without religion?"

I'm saying that laïcité should not be taken for atheism, it is not that. It's separating the secular power from the spiritual one. Each has its own role and scope.
Personally, I have a hard time imagining a true secular humanism, in spite of what Enlightenment heros said.

I agree laïcité protects us from religious wars, it should stay so. No more religion in temporal administration. And the same be imposed to islamists and others: candidates to French nationality should be asked if the Law of the Republic has priority over the Sharia or other religious rules. And sign their agreement, hand on their holy book.
At the same time, not deny the foundation of our civilization and culture, or be ashamed by it, even if we'd be atheist communists.

"perhaps the constitution needs to be changed to limit the president's powers"

This is what Sarkozy is going to do: increase Parliament's powers and ask for its approval in most cases. Curious monarch 'ey...

[Dominique]

Valentin,

"Well in practice, the French President is more powerful than any constitutional monarch or prime minister today."

--> Thank God! He is elected, constitutional monarch are not! C'est quand même la moindre des choses!

"Is it ok to wipe off 2000 years of history? Are you quite sure all the state unification and consolidation work means nothing, from Philippe II to Louis IX to Henri IV and Louis XIV ?"

--> the republic did not wipe 2000 years of consolidation of France. It indeed used it and sometimes went even further. But it took it away from the idea that the nation's unity was based on religious belief and the very person of the King representing God on earth. I maintain the republic did that for good!

"Tourism and fame France enjoys today are based on art and architecture related to Church and made possible by the Princes. The style and politeness so specific to France, admired by the world, come from l'Ancien Regime, not from the Sans-Culottes! :)"

--> The Eiffel tower was related to church? Beaubourg? Opera? Don't get lost in your own views... The eiffel tower (for example) is a true example of what can be done for the purpose of "doing things" and not for the purpose of "believing in God". If you ask nowadays to the people living in Paris what they would choose between the Eiffel Tower and Notre Dame, i am not sure the cathedral would win...

"I was speaking about 1789 and 1871. Invent a "republican calendar"?! Replace God with a "Supreme Being" - like a republican religion? Did all those priests deserved their martyre, only because they were christians?"

--> martyre of the priest? they were representing the political power. So, don't call that "martyre" please as this is a pure religious vocabulary. They did not have problems because they were christian, they had problems because they were governing and participating to an unfair political system. Once again, you are reversing things.

"I'm saying that laïcité should not be taken for atheism, it is not that."

--> I agree. Please explain this to religious leaders and foundamentalists who still believe it is.

"Personally, I have a hard time imagining a true secular humanism, in spite of what Enlightenment heros said. "

--> Personally, I have a hard time imagining a true religious humanism, in spite of what all religious leaders might say

"at the same time, not deny the foundation of our civilization and culture, or be ashamed by it, even if we'd be atheist communists. "

--> no one denies that. But what does it have to do with constitutional law? Religion belongs to sociology for the time being, history for the past. Same with atheïsm, sciences and swimming sports clubs! But politics is about what we are building all together, not about personal beliefs or taste. So it should herald universal values, not religious ones as they do not apply to every one.

Would you say that because USSR was built on comunist values, today's Russia should mention that Russia should not be ashamed of it's Communist roots and herald it in it's own constitution?

[Dominique]

Daniel Strol,

"The former Prime Minister Tony Blair has been received into the Roman Catholic Church"

May be already the first fallout of the "discours du Latran" of our President ..."

How come does this information is making news? who cares? Did you know that he also have had breakfast with black coffe and a fresh croissant when he was in Paris last week? Why isn't the Times publishing this? It is as interesting as his own personal beliefs.

[millier marc]

its isn't a sarko 's show!!!
its sarko circus!!!!!!!
disgisting for my country;

VIVE CHIRAC

[millier marc]

if you want to get somes fresh and obsertifs news here its necessary to read somes weekly news like MARIANNE le nouvel observateur.
also a bit l'express;and liberation every days but also l'humanité .all others press are servants of SARKO circus.excuse me there are also ITV and also if you want BFM TV..

[Daniel Strohl]

Dominique,

"How come does this information is making news? who cares?"

Je voulais simplement vous taquiner !

[Valentin]

"Thank God! He is elected, constitutional monarch are not"

My point was that the Republic seems to have envied the discretionary powers of the King. Being democratically elected is not enough when you're friends with all media moguls [wide grin]

"The Eiffel tower was related to church? Beaubourg?"

Of course not, Christianism didn't inspire everything. It did inspire many important things that make the glory of France. We cannot say all was bad, or that the Republic is perfect.

"If you ask nowadays to the people living in Paris what they would choose between the Eiffel Tower and Notre Dame"

SUCH a wrong question to ask! Both are part of our heritage. That so many French castles (Versailles, above all!!) were saved by foreign mecenas (most americans), while the French state was paying for Mitterrand's mistress, is SUCH a shame for the Republic!

"martyre of the priest? they were representing the political power"

Most of them were simple priests, with no power at all. They were arbitrarily arrested and murdered, without the slightest proof. Church had little political power, hardly governed, judgment was done in king's courts.

"in spite of what all religious leaders might say"

The difference is that I don't base my judgment on that of religious leaders', and I don't give Church any right to righteousness. You don't with those enlightenment figures either, I presume :)

"no one denies that. But what does it have to do with constitutional law? Religion belongs to sociology for the time being, history for the past."

We fully agree. Sarkozy never spoke about constitution. The European treaty, if it was to mention the christian roots of our civilization,it was to state a mere scientific truth, without giving religion a place in secular administration, but a honour one, affirming an important part of our common identity.

"Would you say that because USSR was built on comunist values, today's Russia should mention that Russia should not be ashamed"

The comparison is out of line, sorry. USSR was a historical accident that lasted 70 years. Communist regime was a criminal one bringing but pain, death and devastation. It has so NOTHING to do with those 1000 years of feudal rule.

[John Styx]

Dominique, any modern historian will tell you that the French President has more power than former French kings. Even Louis XIV's power was not absolute. Also, the nation's unity was certainly *not* based on religious belief. How could it be, when the countries aroung France shared the same belief?

John Styx,

"Also, the nation's unity was certainly *not* based on religious belief. How could it be, when the countries aroung France shared the same belief?"

Please note that countries around did not share the same beliefs (have you heard of wars of religions?). More, Louis XIV did install the "Gallicanism" just like Elisabeth is head of the "Anglicanism". He even changed the french kingdom into a "monarchie absolue de droit divin". That's a fact for all historians, modern or not.

meaning :

- monarchie : political unity through one person only
- absolue : all powers concentrated in the king's hands
- droit divin : legitimacy based on God (catholic religion for him): the King represents God on earth. Even the Pope was no longer relevant. He even had some thaumaturgic powers.

If that does not mean that the unity of the country was based on religion, i don't know what that means! By law, the king was only responsible before God and no one else. Sarko is not there yet!

Regarding the king's power, have you heard of religious wars? the reign of 72 years with no possible way out? Protestant having to leave the country? Palatinat? the end of the Edit de Nantes, the right to censorship any article printed? etc...

Sarko does not have a slice of that power, thank God! The french president is not a "monarque absolu de droit divin". That does not make sens, or words do not mean any thing!

[thinknoworpaylater]

Dominique - yeah but.........who does Sarko answer to, apart from "the People" in 4 to 5 years' time? In the UK the Prime Minister has to answer every week to his own party (dissidents) and the Opposition, in public, though he has substantially the same power as the President (start a war, direct the economy, etc.) Further, the Fench President appoints his own Prime Minister who acts as a buffer between him and the Parliament. A similar system existed in the UK in the 18th century (but no longer functions) in which the King appointed the PM. The French President has more power and invulnerability than any other leader in Europe.

[dot king]

Thinknoworpaylater: "The French President has more power and invulnerability than any other leader in Europe." - and he knows it!

[Dominique]

thinknoworpaylater,

The 5ft republic made a clear choice : political power does not belong to the political parties because of what happens in the IV republic, when small parties were deciding the fate of the country every 4 weeks. The purpose of the french parlement is therefore not to be "representative" of the french people, but it is to "support" the goverment and therefore establish political stability during political mandates. We don't want an Italian system in France. We've experienced it already.

" The French President has more power and invulnerability than any other leader in Europe"

Well, so what? He is responsible before the french citizens every 5 years. Thank God, he can not be fired by some moral lobbyist like Kenneth Star in the US. Maybe other european countries could upgrade their system and start electing their leaders with a democratic universal suffrage?

Just kidding...

[Valentin]

Regarding Louis XIV, he's been kind of a dictator of the ancient regime. Normally the royal power was balanced by the council, the Pairs, the regional parliaments and in the end the Etats Généraux.
The problem was that Louis XIV put his work into destroying all these balances or transforming them into puppets, by using his personal prestige and pushing à fonds his divine right. Other kings always took care to negotiate with the cities, the parliaments, the different guilds, let alone the princes ruling the different provinces.
On the other hand, Louis XIV, just like Louis XI, managed to break the independent princes and turn them into mere courtiers, thus turning France from a collection of provinces to an unified country. Today's France would not have existed without him.

""The French President has more power and invulnerability than any other leader in Europe." - and he knows it"

He knows it and he doesn't think that's normal and he's about to propose new rules to narrow the "shade areas" where the presidential power is completely unchecked and give wide checking powers to the Parliament.
Weird absolutist that he is, le Petit Nicolas!

[John Styx]

Dear anon, French unity began in the Middle Ages. Think of Joan of Arc for instance. All Western Europe was shared the same flavour of christinity at that time.

Monarchie de droit divin began before Louis XIV and even before the modern era. The notion of thaumaturgic powers date from the 11th century; anointment with chrism from the Sainte Ampoule dates from Charles the Bald (9th century). English kings were also anointed and were supposed to have thaumaturgic powers as well.

Louis XIV did not install gallicanism; you're focusing too much on the Declaration of the Clergy of France. Read again the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438). It's all there.

Your choice of examples of royal power (Palatinat, Edit de Nantes, etc.) is very biaised. A republic (and a democracy) can also wage offensive war, break the laws of war, infringe international treaties, mistreat a part of its population or exert censorship. Colonial wars or apartheid, anyone?

True, the French President does not have the same amount of powers than an absolute monarch as far as the use of force is concerned. He cannot declare wars on his own (yet how many wars have been formally declared since 1945 exactly?).

However, the level of control enjoyed now by the French executive over French citizens is much more important than in the modern era. Vital records were much less developed than they are now. Police forces were not deployed evenly on the French territory. The provinces had different jurisdictions, corpus of laws and types of magistrates. Law enforcement was much more difficult. The French executive can now levy taxes in a way that Louis XIV could only have dreamt about. I'm not only talking about the general tax pressure, because it's hard to assess it in modern times -- I'm talking mostly about collection efficiency. Finally, as far as capacity of projection of power is concerned, please remember that modern France had a very small permanent army and no permanent navy.

[dot king]

Dominique, Tony Blair's conversion to Catholicism is making news because he was very recently the head of a government in a country where Catholics are a minority, and the Queen, to whom he is in theory answerable, is head of the Church of England and nominally head of state.
It might be of no more interest to many people than what he ate for breakfast, BUT - a point I infer from his conversion to Catholicism AT THIS POINT IN TIME, is that he waited until he was NO LONGER Prime Minister of Great Britain, thus avoiding (again in theory) an apparent conflict of interests.
If one takes this at face value, it demonstrates a familiarity with and a respect for the rôle and code of behaviour of a head of state that perhaps Sarkozy could take a look at, as he seems to be at cross-purposes as to whether he's a gossip press star, a gigolo/stud, a kisser of papal rings, or the president of a European country.

[Dominique]

Dot King,

Thank God (!!), Sarko did not take Blair as an example yet regarding religion! I much prefer having to discuss his love affairs rather than his religion!

Sorry, i'll never buy anything regarding religion. Sarko went already too far in Rome last week!

J.Styx,

"Vital records were much less developed than they are now. Police forces were not deployed evenly on the French territory."

Of course. That's mainly because of what is possible today as compared to what was possible by then. But please note that regarding those vital records, a parlementary monarchy such as Britain goes much much further than a republic like the french one; you only need to compare DNA files, the number of cameras in the streets or the "neighbourwood watch" culture.

Of course a republic can become as mad as a kingdom, but we were discussing the "power of one" issue witch is now clearly less than what it used to be.

[dot king]

Dominique, not trying to sell you anything as regards religion, no matter whose. I was just giving an explanantion of why Blair's conversion might be considered "news". I wasn't praising or defending him, but you asked "why is this news?" I ventured an answer. To take or to leave, au choix. :)

[Valentin]

An unrepented sinner :) said :

"Sorry, i'll never buy anything regarding religion"

The point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas_truce

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joyeux_No%C3%ABl_%28film%29

Open your heart and come into the light, D :)