Ensemble tout devient possible
I’m very happy about Sarkozy winning the French presidential election. He certainly has a mandate for change. As a Francophile from a Francophone Egyptian family, France is near and dear to me. I admire its culture, heritage, language, food, and lifestyle. That said, the dangerous French turn to an all out welfare state worries me. Though France is not graying as much as other European countries, and is actually replenishing its populations at stable rates (must be the wine), it still might not be able to hold up such generous social services for much longer. I see Sarkozy as France’s oppurtunity to get people to work harder again, assimilate immigrants properly, protect French borders, enliven the Franco-German machine to lead the EU, lower the tax burden in France, and stimulate corporate growth, entrepeneurialism, and economic development. All while maintaining France’s rich traditions of intellectualism, secularism, and la bonne vie.
Furthermore, I’m very interested in France because of the strength of the Franco-Egyptian relationship that has emerged in recent years. Even under Sarkozy, Franco-Egyptian relations will continue to remain incredibly strong.
Chirac and Mubarak had a very close friendship. There was almost a Franco-Egyptian alliance regarding Middle Eastern affairs. Did you know that President Mubarak was the FIRST foreign official to visit Pres. Chirac at his Palais d’Elysee? That speaks volumes about the importance and strength of French-Egyptian relations. Furthermore, Chirac and Mubarak met 3 or 4 times a year AT LEAST and agreed on almost everything. In fact, at the most recent press conference last month, Chirac remarked that there really was no need for him to answer questions on the Middle East since Mubarak and he “agreed on everything.” Egypt is probably the only country in the world France can say that to.
Furthermore, during that most recent visit, Mubarak met with Sarkozy who said he would continue Chirac’s close relationship with Egypt. This can be easily believed, since Sarkozy is part of Chirac’s party and administration and there is no indication of a different approach to Middle East policy. Furthermore, Sarkozy is a smart man who understands the need for a close alliance with moderate Middle Eastern states.
All French-Egyptians my family knows (at least 10) voted for Sarkozy! I’m sure they know what they’re doing.
Join the Conversation
According to this article in the Tayyar site of Michel Aoun’s Lebanese Free Patriotic Movement (FPM) – 72% of the 6346 French citizens who live in Lebanon voted for Nicolas Sarkozy, while 28% voted for Segolene Royale..
Well, I don’t know if this is an award everyone would like to have!
In the election campaign Royal and Sarkozy both spoke of the comming up reforms, they want to make. Craig Smith has the opinion that change is a loser. He has some good reasons but I hope that he’s wrong!
Moreover I hope Sarkozy won’t be to nationalistic and more open-minded towards the European Union. But I’m sceptical. Have you already seen the regards of Tony Blair at YouTube in French? A nice idea!
I am not a big fan of Mme Royal, but the election of Sarkosy is truly a disgrace for France. Mr. Sarkosy basically stole his campaign, at least his stance on immigration, on Islam, and on repression of the young disaffected minorities living in the cités (bad neighborhoods outside large cities) from the extreme right. He has offensively used words like ‘racaillie’ (scum) a derogative and race-charged term used to refer to the afore mentioned youth, and talked about ‘cleansing’ France from such scum with a “karcher” or fireman’s hose.
France is in indeed in need of reforms–it’s archaic bureaucracy, it’s sluggish economy, it’s overprotection of agriculture…you name it. The needed economic reforms will be painful, especially knowing the French public’s uneasines with change. They will require a strong social consensus and a long democratic dialoague with the people. Sarkosy has a history of silencing those who dissagree with him. He is a divider. He’s a monolgue kindo of man. He does not have the patience nor the will for dialogue.
The French social fabric is breaking apart as is. Polarization between the haves and the have-nots is at an all time high. The last thing France needs is a leader whose modus operandum is based on the politics of exclusion.
Galit is just repeating the nonsense she heard in the French leftist press. Had she bothered to listen to the campaigns and think for herself perhaps she would have come to different conclusions.
At the time of the riots in the neighborhoods around Paris and other cities Chirac and his protege, then-prime minister Dominique Villepin, were talking out of both sides of their mouths. Villepin announced in effect that the law must be obeyed but that nothing should be done to enforce it. Neither the French nor the rioters were impressed.
Sarkozy’s response as Minister of the Interior to the riots was to announce that any non-citizen convicted of a crime associated with the rioting would have his or her immigration status revoked and be deported. The rioting stopped the next day. The rioters hated France enough to burn it but not enough to leave it.
Unlike Chirac and Villepin, Sarkozy also had a positive response to the rioters’ professed grievances, primarily chronic unemployment. He proposed American-style affirmative action programs, an idea alien to traditional power-elite politicians like Chirac and Villepin.
So far from these being neofascist National Front policies as Galit and the Socialists claim (racist neofascists generally do not think well of affirmative action for minorities), they were so popular among the Gaullist center-right coalition that Villepin was discredited and withdrew from the presidential race. He subsequently endorsed Sarkozy.
The Socialist Royal would have been more sympathetic to the unemployed rioters but would not have helped them get jobs. Sarkozy is less sympathetic to them as rioters, but will help them get jobs. Which is better?