Should we be watching the French presidential campaign with admiration or alarm? Or perhaps a bit of both? It is undeniably a great "show" with all the ingredients of a Hollywood blockbuster, including a surprising plot twist: the emergence of a "Third Man," Francois Bayrou.
Even if his victory remains unlikely, Bayrou must now be taken seriously. First and foremost, he has found in Segolene Royal and Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy two remarkable spokespersons for his candidacy. The more Royal returns to the "classics" of the Socialist Party and the more Sarkozy openly courts the extreme right, the more Bayrou's popularity rises. Indeed, persistent doubts among the French about Royal's competence and Sarkozy's character are the primary reasons for his dramatic rise in public opinion polls, from 7 percent support at the start of the campaign to 22 percent now.
The second reason for Bayrou's spectacular rise has less to do with personalities and more with France's national mood. The very reason that led a majority of the French to say "no" to the referendum on the EU's draft Constitutional Treaty in May 2005 may lead them to vote for Bayrou, the most pro-European of all candidates.
Why this paradox? A vote that meant saying "no" to the Constitutional Treaty in 2005 now means saying "no" to the leaders of the French left and right. In the 2002 presidential election, frustration with the system fueled strong support for the extremes, with Jean-Marie Le Pen, the leader of the far right, qualifying for the second-round runoff. This year by contrast -- and this constitutes real progress -- a large segment of the French population is expressing its frustration with the system by being tempted to vote for the "extreme center," ie, Bayrou.
Bayrou has been in politics for a long time, including as a presidential candidate in 2002. But, while his record as education minister is far from impressive, he has successfully reinvented his image in the last few months, becoming the "new man" of French politics. He looks more reassuring than Sarkozy and sounds more competent than Royal. This would not be enough for Bayrou in ordinary times, but today, on both sides of the political divide, opponents of the main candidates seem ready to join forces with him and betray their respective camps.
What makes Bayrou potentially so strong is the fact that widespread reservations about the two leading candidates are influencing the calculus of militants and politicians alike. On the conservative side, French President Jacques Chirac now officially supports Sarkozy, but he may also secretly encourage his most loyal supporters to vote for Bayrou, even if there is no love lost between the two men. On the left, the social democratic wing of the Socialist party, which backed Dominique Strauss-Kahn against Royal, may be tempted to align with Bayrou, too, owing to the prospect of a post-electoral alliance between the center left and the center right.
That said, surveys of the electorate demonstrate that a large proportion is still undecided, particularly among Bayrou's supporters. So it is too early to say whether Bayrou can reach the second round. But if he does, he is likely to prove irresistible.
A Bayrou victory, which is unlikely but not impossible, would constitute a triple revolution. It would lead first to the end of the Socialist Party created by Francois Mitterrand. Following former prime minister Lionel Jospin's humiliating defeat in 2002, the Socialists simply would not survive a second consecutive failure to reach the second round.
Moreover, a Bayrou victory could signify the end of the conservative party created by Chirac, as well as of Charles de Gaulle's Fifth Republic. But de Gaulle's legacy would most likely be snuffed out gently, with nostalgia for both Mitterrand and Chirac possibly proving very tempting for a people disaffected with the political system but desiring to be reassured. France wants the illusion of change, but is continuity what she truly desires?
Finally, while this election was expected to usher in a new generation of politicians, few were prepared to anticipate the peaceful political tsunami that a Bayrou victory would bring. Yet that would be the outcome if the attraction towards the center proves to be as irresistible for significant segments of the Socialists and conservative parties as it now seems.
France is a marvelously paradoxical country, so the search for novelty, if not modernity, could lead to the reinvention of the Fourth Republic, a parliamentary regime characterized by its weaknesses and instability. That will depend in part on whether the perception of Sarkozy as a risky candidate will prove greater than the very real institutional risk represented by Bayrou.
There is maybe less of a French presence in the world today than there was 12 years ago when Chirac came to power, especially since the rejection of the Constitutional Treaty in 2005. But the world's interest in the French presidential campaign is greater than ever, and can be compared only with the attention generated by Mitterrand's election in 1981.
Much may change in the few weeks left before the first round of the presidential vote. But the campaign has now become a question of numbers: Will the Third Man bury the Fifth Republic?
Dominique Moisi, a founder and senior adviser at the French Institute for International Relations, is a professor at the College of Europe in Natolin, Warsaw.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
US President Donald Trump has gotten off to a head-spinning start in his foreign policy. He has pressured Denmark to cede Greenland to the United States, threatened to take over the Panama Canal, urged Canada to become the 51st US state, unilaterally renamed the Gulf of Mexico to “the Gulf of America” and announced plans for the United States to annex and administer Gaza. He has imposed and then suspended 25 percent tariffs on Canada and Mexico for their roles in the flow of fentanyl into the United States, while at the same time increasing tariffs on China by 10
Trying to force a partnership between Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) and Intel Corp would be a wildly complex ordeal. Already, the reported request from the Trump administration for TSMC to take a controlling stake in Intel’s US factories is facing valid questions about feasibility from all sides. Washington would likely not support a foreign company operating Intel’s domestic factories, Reuters reported — just look at how that is going over in the steel sector. Meanwhile, many in Taiwan are concerned about the company being forced to transfer its bleeding-edge tech capabilities and give up its strategic advantage. This is especially
US President Donald Trump last week announced plans to impose reciprocal tariffs on eight countries. As Taiwan, a key hub for semiconductor manufacturing, is among them, the policy would significantly affect the country. In response, Minister of Economic Affairs J.W. Kuo (郭智輝) dispatched two officials to the US for negotiations, and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co’s (TSMC) board of directors convened its first-ever meeting in the US. Those developments highlight how the US’ unstable trade policies are posing a growing threat to Taiwan. Can the US truly gain an advantage in chip manufacturing by reversing trade liberalization? Is it realistic to
Last week, 24 Republican representatives in the US Congress proposed a resolution calling for US President Donald Trump’s administration to abandon the US’ “one China” policy, calling it outdated, counterproductive and not reflective of reality, and to restore official diplomatic relations with Taiwan, enter bilateral free-trade agreement negotiations and support its entry into international organizations. That is an exciting and inspiring development. To help the US government and other nations further understand that Taiwan is not a part of China, that those “one China” policies are contrary to the fact that the two countries across the Taiwan Strait are independent and
RSS