Why It Matters : Le Nouvel Observateur

Sarko and Merkel Discover That They Need Each Other

Newsweek — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 21:21:22 GMT

By Clare Premo

While the German press frequently criticizes French president Nicolas Sarkozy as “Little Napoleon” and mocks the arrogance of the “Great Nation,” these days it is changing its aim to attack German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Germany’s reaction to the financial crisis has been to sit tight and wait it out, while France has been eager to involve the state through stimulus packages and EU action. Merkel, formerly admired for her determination and steadfastness, is now facing criticism for her immobility in the face of one of Germany’s worst recessions, reports Jean-Gabriel Fredet in Le Nouvel Observateur.

In contrast, Sarkozy’s activist response to the crisis is garnering support throughout Europe. Despite their conflicting approaches, it seems that France and Germany are finally putting aside their differences to work together. “The sudden financial crisis in Germany—a country that thought its economy was a safe distance from the sub-prime crisis—on top of the start of a recession for Europe’s number one economy, showed the fragility of an export-oriented model," one French diplomat points out. "This changed the perspective in the country.” Fredet says that German public opinion disapproves of Merkel’s refusal to create a massive European response to the crisis.

Strangely, the pressure to take action has improved relations between Germany and France. After a long period of stiff gestures and policy differences, the two heads of state have come to realize that they need each other. Despite polar political styles—Sarkozy is “an exuberant bling-bling president” while Merkel is an austere leader from the former East Germany—the pair is aware that if they don’t work together, then they will fail together.

As the two major advocates for a semi-socialist economy, they have every reason to stop bickering and join hands. In Berlin, both German and French partners are envisioning ways to restart the stagnant economy, either by using consumption vouchers for low-wage workers or by borrowing 100 billion euros to stimulate demand. In a crisis that has exposed the interconnectedness of the world economy, a greater emphasis on cooperation and understanding can only help.

Human Rights in France: A Gray Area

Newsweek — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:07:32 GMT

By Clare Premo

On the 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there is concern in France that it is not up to snuff, write Florence Aubenas and Patrick Fiole in this week’s Le Nouvel Observateur. On the one hand, seventy-one percent of the French believe that they live in a country that respects human rights, according to a poll, which was conducted by the MV2 Council. On the other hand, one in three French people says that human rights are not actually respected in many countries that, like France, supposedly have the best practices. France finds itself in a gray zone between image and reality. Like the United States, it’s a country that wants to be a beacon to the rest of the world, but often ends up as a different sort of light—that of an interrogation lamp.

The struggle with human rights has a long history in France. Although the Declaration was proclaimed in 1948 in the aftermath of World War II, Charles de Gaulle refused to ratify it. Since France had created the original Declaration of the Rights of Man back in 1789, he considered it unnecessary to formally approve the document. “These things, they’re good for dictatorships and such. In France, an international control would be a regression,” he said. More likely, it was a fear of repercussions for torture violations in the Algerian War that prevented him from signing on. It wasn’t until 1974 that the treaty was finally ratified by France, and not until 1981 that cases could be brought before the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg.

These days, Strasbourg is held in very high esteem in France. Seventy-five percent of the French think that the European Court of Human Rights protects their rights better than their own courts and parliament. It's a good thing, too, since France is the fourth biggest human rights violator in Europe, according to Aubenas and Fiole. Generally, the decisions handed down cite “racism that permeates society and her institutions” as the primary factor behind human rights abuses. But in addition to that, one can cite incidents of torture, immigration rights, police impunity, and the sorry state of prisons.

Strasbourg is revered because of its clear principles and their fair, consistent application. In the French court system, that sadly is not the case. This is just one example of how France does not live up to the protected rights in the Declaration. For instance, thirty-six percent of citizens believe that France does not respect the right to work, which was included in the 1948 declaration. And the French prison system is a catastrophe: 147 prisons out of 190 don’t meet national standards. Often two inmates have to share a space meant for one. A U.N. worker says that interns are required to look at the French prison files to understand one of the West’s great tragedies.

Despite such a gloomy outlook, France is not even close to being among the worst human rights offenders. Only eight percent of the French say that their right to equality before the law has been questioned, and a mere four percent respond that their freedom of thought or religion has been jeopardized. Still, for a country that created the Declarations of the Rights of Man 220 years ago, there’s been plenty of time for practice. One can only hope that this 60th anniversary of the Universal Declaration will be a reminder of the importance of human rights not only in the third world, but in our own countries as well.

France: The President Who Ate His Government

Newsweek — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 05:09:36 GMT

By Clare Premo

French President Nicolas Sarkozy can hardly be faulted for lack of leadership. He seems to be everywhere all the time -- in France, in Europe, and literally around the globe. But according to the cover of this week's Le Nouvel Observateur written by Assistant Editor in Chief Hervé Algalarrondo, there's cause for concern that Sarkozy may become the president who ate his own government, upsetting the balance of power and usurping all authority.

In France, the executive branch is made up of the president, the prime minister, and the various ministers of different departments. While the constitution specifies that this group as a whole should direct the nation’ s policies, Algalarrondo says it's increasingly apparent that the president is augmenting his power while the rest merely look on. Le Nouvel Observateur suggests that the “true” government is not comprised of the ministers with official titles, but of the close advisors, best friends, party members and a panel of experts that Sarkozy turns to if and when he wants advice.

For instance, it seems as if Prime Minister François Fillon is all but dispensable these days. Not only has the president taken over most of his traditional roles, he’s even gone as far as to claim the prime minister’s customary weekend home for himself. That merely symbolizes the general break in the balance of powers. Sarkozy has given himself the ability to assign dossiers and to take charge of important decisions, in effect downgrading Fillon to just another minister among many. Sarkozy doesn’t seem to think this is a problem for Fillon: “Why is he unhappy? He’s the prime minister!” the president was quoted saying last year. Indeed, to Algalarrondo, it seems that Sarkozy expects Fillon to be grateful for the title, rather than bitter that his duties are being systematically reduced. For now, Fillon’s remaining domain is the leadership of Parliament. But with recent Constitutional changes that begin to tread on this right, who knows how long this fragile balance can last? (And with the complete implosion of the Socialist Party over the weekend, there is now no effective opposition to Sarkozy at any level of government.)

Fillon’s not the only one feeling unwanted. The ministers of the different departments are experiencing a decline in power as well. Apparently writing the script for the prime minister is not enough for Sarkozy; he wants to be the producer, director, star -- and cinematographer and publicist -- for the entire show. While in theory, the ministers might be in charge of the economy, internal security, or justice, in practice, they hold a post comparable to a vice-minister, the interchangeable members of a supporting cast.

Algalarrondo believes that Sarkozy’s actions are creating a cabinet à l'americaine. In other words, the personal advisors and friends with whom he chooses to surround himself are more important than the official government members themselves. These “Sarko boys” have the unprecedented authority to make statements to the press, indicating that they are not merely voices on the periphery, but actively accepted as major policy advisors. Sarkozy prefers that they be older, ensuring that they aren’t a threat to his power. Four men, Claude Guéant, François Pérol, Raymond Soubie, and Patrick Ouart, are so intertwined in Sarkozy’s governing style that they have earned the nickname “The Four Musketeers”.

Is this an unconstitutional seizure of power or a natural evolution of government? One thing’s for sure: French politics will never be the same again.

Why Isn't France a Land of Opportunity?

Newsweek — Thu, 13 Nov 2008 21:44:59 GMT

By Clare Premo

Fifty years ago, a black politician named Gaston Monnerville was nearly chosen as France’s first vice-president, but his skin color cost him the post. The United States will soon have a black man at the helm, but France is pretty much in the same position as it was back in Monnerville’s time. Both countries share a message of equality and have heterogeneous populations; why then, is the land of opportunity a reality in America but just a dream in France? asks Claude Weill, Le Nouvel Observateur’s managing director, in this week’s issue.

The United States has faced its racial demons head on, and the black community has spoken out, says Weill. While today’s America includes a black elite in politics, business, and other sectors, it didn’t happen overnight. Targeted affirmative action and bold steps have been needed to throw off the mantle of slavery and discrimination.

France, on the other hand, has been downright demure. Although there are some common catchphrases, like “Equality under the law for all citizens, regardless of origin, race, or religion”, Weill argues that these are actually clever methods employed so that France can sit on her hands. And while being colorblind sounds honorable, this leads to a denial of the problem and so nothing ever gets better. In other words, it’s much easier to keep the status quo if you do not acknowledge that work needs to be done. For this reason, reforms aimed at helping minorities are few and far between; ideas like anonymous resumes and ethnic statistics have been quickly shot down. In a perversion of republican ideals, the call for theoretical equality has actually perpetuated inequality. While it’s taboo to change this perspective, Le Nouvel Observateur believes that this is the moment for action.

We’ll find out soon if France is ready. Last spring, French president Nicolas Sarkozy asked politician Simone Veil to figure out a way to introduce “diversity” into the French Constitution, and the report is being written . Will there be a political willingness to put the government’s actions in line with its rhetoric? It’s now or never!

Obama and a Return to Diplomacy

Newsweek — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 21:52:48 GMT

By Clare Premo

Like many American citizens, the French are eager to put Barack Obama’s victory into quasi-Messianic terms. Jean Daniel, director and co-founder of Le Nouvel Observateur, writes that the win is a “great deliverance” indicating that the world is about to change. In his article “What the World Expects from Obama”, Daniel writes with an assumption that the incoming administration will change the world, but does not specify how Obama’s new policies will affect other nations. To start, he cites the monumental domestic shift that has occurred. He points to the fact that the United States has rejected Bush and the WASP model by electing a black Democrat as proof of America’s acceptance of her multicultural and multiracial composition. He goes on to emphasize America’s potential for change under the new president, citing Obama’s future negotiations with world leaders and his sense of organization and calculation. Yet the mental leap connecting this revolutionary election to a new world order is not clear. It seems that Daniel, like many Europeans, may not really know what he is in for. Such a tremendous outpouring of hope and support is nice, but ‘change’ means many things to people all over the world, and it’s impossible for Obama to be everything to everyone.

Ezra Suleiman, director of the Center for European Studies at Princeton University, agrees. His commentary published in Le Nouvel Observateur, entitled “Hope, then Disappointment?” explains that Europeans may be misleading themselves. They are apt to imagine that Obama is cut from the same leftist cloth and that he intends to completely break with Bush policies. Europeans may be shocked if that’s not what happens. Furthermore, Obama’s main interest is to make sure that America stays a superpower. In other words, necessity, rather than ideology, will direct politics.

The concept of “change” might not take into account the fact that America has domestic interests to look after, but it seems fair to say that Obama will oversee a return to diplomacy. While France should not hold its breath and expect Obama to be a savior, it can hope for a return to multilateralism. Le Nouvel Observateur asked eight specialists for their predictions of what Obama’s presidency would bring, and the response titles are telling: “Reestablishment of the international prestige of the United States”, “Rejection of Unilateralism”, and “A vision of the world, a strategy to change it”. All suggest that France’s definition of change is really a code word for a new multilateralism. While Obama cannot be everything to everyone, he is certainly not lacking in nations wishing him well. One can only hope that with Obama’s enthusiasm and the world’s receptiveness, the world will witness a new form of diplomacy that will please Americans and foreigners alike.

Memo to Sarkozy: Forget Free Trade

Newsweek — Fri, 31 Oct 2008 17:31:01 GMT

By Clare Premo

The free market has failed and it is time for a new model, says author and researcher Emmanuel Todd in this week's Le Nouvel Observateur. He criticizes French president Nicolas Sarkozy's reaction to the economic downturn, saying that he has ignored the lessons of the crisis: rather than trying to practice old habits with a few twists, we need a complete overhaul of business-as-usual. Todd believes that free trade has actually led to a plunge in demand, created social insecurity and a lowered the standard of living. Against this backdrop, he writes that protectionism is the last chance for European democracy.

Although free trade was once useful, says Todd, its heyday has passed. Globalization, as we know it, is gone, and the best way to proceed is to turn inward. Europe could decide to become a regulated economic zone, protecting itself against imports and outsourcing. With a population of 450 million, this goal is not as far fetched as it sounds, he says, because there is considerable potential to be self-sufficient. At the core, Todd believes that protectionism is less about halting imports and more about creating the conditions that stimulate domestic demand and raise European salaries. The transition to protectionism is possible as long as French elites recognize their social responsibility and promote protectionism as the way to stave off the decrepitude of the Old Continent.

All of this, however, is contingent on Germany's acceptance of this new direction. Although the French don't like to admit it, Germany is the heart of European economic production. Without Germany at the helm, there is no way that Europe can turn around its economy. It is essential to make Germany understand that there is a bigger gain to be had by increasing domestic demand than by relying on unpredictable global demand. To encourage Germany's participation, Todd thinks that France needs to acknowledge Germany's political and economic power and encourage Germany's recognition of its responsibility in redesigning European protectionism.

Todd insists that this system is the best way to ensure the future for Europe's children. Free trade "has destroyed two generations," says Todd. The only way to be sure that will not happen again is by inventing a new European economic model.

Liberty, Equality, Hypocrisy: Why There's No French Obama

Newsweek — Fri, 24 Oct 2008 14:20:13 GMT

By Clare Premo, Paris

The French adore Barack Obama, and they aren’t shy about it. A recent poll in the daily newspaper Le Monde showed 68 percent of the population would vote for Obama, whereas only 5 percent would vote for John McCain. In this week’s Le Nouvel Observateur, the magazine’s managing director, Claude Weill, suggests this enthusiasm stems from what the Democratic candidate represents to the French—a break from the American heritage of slavery, racism and discrimination.

Maybe it’s only natural for the country that penned "The Declaration of the Rights of Man" to condescend about Americans finally overcoming their original sins. The French, with their national motto of “liberty, equality, fraternity,” would like to believe that such a figure as Obama could have the same sort of meteoric rise and evoke the same kind of noble passions right here in France as the candidate they are watching from afar.

What are the chances, however, that the son of an African immigrant could graduate in the top tiers of the best French university and be elected president of the republic at age 47? Not great. In a speech in Philadelphia, Obama pointedly remarked that “in no other country on earth is my story even possible.” As Weill points out, the way Obama addresses the question of race is more straightforward and more honest than what you’ll hear among the French. When his ex-pastor’s statements caused an uproar, Obama spoke out. He stressed the importance of refusing to “simply wish [racism] away, to condemn it without understanding its roots.”

France is not nearly as straightforward about race. Even though the country has a huge problem, people pretend it doesn't exist until a scandal forces them to pay attention to the elephant in the room. A recent soccer match was a case in point. During the game between France and Tunisia, kids with French nationality who came from Tunisian backgrounds insulted and disrespected the French national anthem. That got the nation’s attention, but the result was just a new collection of platitudes and condemnations.

It’s convenient for the French to pretend that America’s reprehensible racial past is purely a product of the institution of slavery, and that their own country is somehow immune to the guilt and resentments that stemmed from it. But to believe that, as Weill points out, you have ignore France’s own history of colonialism (and slavery). You also have to overlook the racial crises in working-class suburbs of the big cities, the sporadic riots and the failure of local political systems. “It’s not by denying inherited divisions that we can overcome them," says Weill, "it’s by tackling them head on. It’s not by preaching about grand principles that we can achieve equal rights for all citizens; it’s by acting.” Although the United States has sometimes failed to ensure the rights of minorities, these disappointments are overshadowed by spectacular successes. Without the stunning progress of the past 50 years, Obama could not be in the position that he enjoys today. Whether he wins or loses, Obama’s campaign has shown how far America has come … and how far France still has to go.

'Holy Ignorance,' a French View

Newsweek — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:01:01 GMT

By Clare Premo, Paris

Is France an old-world Catholic country, a land of soaring cathedral spires and hallowed saints? Or is it an extremely secular state, grimly opposed to religious symbols in its schools, whether crucifixes, yarmulkes or veils? The truth, of course, is that it’s both. And in this week’s edition of Le Nouvel Observateur, scholar Olivier Roy, best known for his studies of militant Islam, uses France’s own experience to look at old time religion in the new world of the 21st century.

France, like the United States and much of the rest of the world, has seen an explosion of what’s often called revivalism and public religiosity. But according to Roy this is no “return to religion” in the traditional sense. He calls it a “mutation” that is quite particular to our times. Hybrid faiths are emerging as the result of global rootlessness or, as Roy calls it, deculturation. By separating religions from their traditional cultural environments, Roy says, globalization actually encourages fundamentalism as people practicing their faith come to see themselves as embattled minorities. In the French case, the constant influx of North African and Africans has created a substantial population that is no longer grounded in the inherited traditions of the land where they now live or the one that they came from.

Globalization also favors religions that can be “exported” easily, Roy tells Le Nouvel Observateur; in other words, faiths that are not specifically tied to a geographic location or a single culture. For this reason, we should not view today’s religious tensions arising from fundamentalism as a “clash of cultures”; the problem that these mutated faiths pose is precisely that they do not represent any traditional culture at all.

Roy cites the spreading popularity of Pentecostalism. This religion is the fastest growing in the world because it removes all essences of culture from worship, he says. The practice of speaking in tongues is emblematic, since those tongues are not connected to any place on this earth. The message is that the the Holy Spirit does not need to transform itself into a single type of culture and language, but goes beyond.

In this era of “spiritual nomadism,” Roy says, learning is devalued and ignorance exalted. Traditional cultures are seen by new believers as, at worst, pagan execrations, at best of of no value unless they are imbued with the spirit of religion. “What’s disappeared is the idea of culture as something with its own positive value, as a foundation shared by believers and unbelievers,” says Roy. At the same time there is a generalized indifference to theology in favor of “lived” faith. “Holy ignorance is not a return to some kind of archaic belief,” Roy concludes. “It is the expression of a modern design: the affirmation of the self, the enjoyment of the moment, of doing instead of thinking, of the immediate against the enduring.”

France to Nobel Committee: Qu'est-ce que c'est?

Christopher Dickey — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 14:56:40 GMT

By Clare Premo

Old controversies die hard. The October 6 presentation of the Nobel Prize for Medicine to two French researchers should have been the end of a 30-year debate over who should get credit for discovering the AIDS virus. A dispute between American researcher Robert Gallo and French researchers Françoise Barré-Sinoussi and Luc Montagnier entered a long truce in 1987 when President Jacques Chirac declared the two teams to be co-discoverers. The 2008 Nobel prize committee, however, awarded this year’s prize to Sinoussi and Montagnier, cutting Gallo out entirely. The French should be happy, non?

They’re not, according to an article in this week's Le Nouvel Observateur. The Nobel Committee decided to split the medicine prize between the French scientists and a German researcher, Harald zur Hausen, who discovered the Human Papilloma Virus. Why, the magazine asks, do each of the French winners—who discovered a disease affecting 1 percent of the world’s population—only receive 25 percent of the prize while zur Hausen gets 50 percent for research concerning a more minor virus?

That's only the tip of the iceberg of France's disillusionment with medicine. Last week Le Nouvel Observateur reported that the French are pessimistic about the future of their healthcare system (despite what they tell Michael Moore). An astounding 74 percent of French citizens think that their country’s healthcare system has been getting worse in recent years, largely due to social security problems and cutbacks in reimbursement and hospital personnel. That's a 9 percent jump from last year’s poll. Perhaps they have reason to be worried. President Nicolas Sarkozy’s administration has proposed shaking up the system by centralizing the hospital system, increasing the state's role in managing its citizens' healthcare. This move is criticized by local officials, private practice doctors, hospital practitioners, and Medef, France’s largest union.

Despite their unhappiness, the French public doesn’t seem ready to take action. In Le Nouvel Observateur’s recent poll , only 48 percent of respondents are prepared to pay for medications themselves for “small health problems” in order to preserve the national healthcare system. At the same time, fewer respondents say they’re taking measures to prevent illness, such as eating healthfully, exercising regularly. Not only do the French lack confidence in their supposedly world-class system, but they also are failing to take care of themselves. At least they have a Nobel prize. Or half of one.

The French Kiss and Tell

Christopher Dickey — Thu, 06 Mar 2008 16:03:37 GMT

For those who may have thought the French were always a little more, hmmmm, you know, open about sex, the latest Le Nouvel Observateur may come as something of a shock. The cover of France's leading weekly magazine of news and opinion--entitled "The New Sexuality of the French"--suggests the country is still coming to grips with the revolution in morals and manners that began 40 years ago in, you guessed it, that pivotal year of Boomer consciousness: 1968. The ensemble of stories includes everything from small talk about deep thinking--an interview with the aging nouveau philosophe Alain Finkielkraut--to a survey of sex toys. Some, we're told, "are useful for relieving stress."

The core of the coverage, however, is built around a survey of 12,364 men and women aged 18 to 69 conducted by the French National Agency for AIDS Research. It's a follow-up on a similar study done in 1992, and the changes revealed are more evolutionary than revolutionary: The traditional idea of men as predators and women "waiting for the warrior at the entrance to the cave," as the Nouvel Obs writes blandly, "just won't fly anymore. Henceforth, women want to take part in the hunt." Backing that up are numbers that show men have about the same number of sexual partners over a lifetime today (12.9) as they did in 1970 (12.8), while the number of partners for women has increased from an average 1.9 in 1972 to 5.1 today.

With respect to gays, some prejudice endures and homosexual practice, at least as shared with those conducting the survey, seems to be pretty much the same as it's been for years: 4 percent of women say they have sexual relations with other women, compared with 2.6 percent in 1992; among men the numbers are unchanged at 4.1 percent. "The development of tolerance as a matter of principle, which is especially pronounced among the young, has not been enough to produce radical changes in private attitudes toward homosexuality," says the research agency's report.

And sexual practices? There's nothing in Le Nouvel Obs, in fact, about French kissing. But there are many other details about preferred approaches to sexual intercourse--or not, as the case may be. A checklist:

Masturbation: Practiced by 90 percent of men, from a very young age, and by 60 percent of women, who start later.

Oral sex: Massively entered into common practice in the years 1990-2000. From the age of 25 onward, two-thirds of women perform fellatio. As for cunnilingus, 85 percent of men and women have tried it.

Anal penetration: Still a minority. However, 35 percent of women and 45 percent of men have had the experience, which is more than in 1992.

Lovemaking without any penetration at all: One in five women and one in three men surveyed have had this experience at least once in their sexual encounters.

The first time: Outdoors, on the beach, in the woods or in the fields when we are talking about older people. Then, in the car. Today, at their parents' home or in a room loaned by friends.

Condoms: 90 percent of young people today use them the first time they have sex. One person out of two has been tested already for HIV. Less encouraging, on the other hand, those 26 percent of heterosexual men and 32 percent of women who have had two or more partners over the last year and are unprotected.

Internet: Henceforth an integral part of the amorous landscape. Ten percent of women and 13 percent of men questioned already are connected to dating sites. The girls as much as, or even more than, the boys.

Frequency: As in 1992, both women and men say they are having on average nine sexual encounters a month. And 90 percent of them are satisfied.

(Photo shows a bookseller displaying vintage sex magazines alongside the Seine. Credit: Christopher Dickey)

France to Sarkozy: "Get Lost, You Jerk"

Christopher Dickey — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 14:15:17 GMT

It's hard to believe that anyone could long for the good old days of Jacques Chirac, but when President Nicolas Sarkozy visited the Agriculture Fair in Paris a few days ago, he managed to remind the French how comfortable they used to feel with his lanky, laid-back predecessor. When Chirac visited the annual fair, he did so as a bon vivant. Sarkozy, on the other hand, went through it in an overheated rush, using language fit for a scrum in the Metro. The video of the event captured by the tabloid daily Le Parisien has been watched by more than three million viewers:

(You can see it with relevant translation on The Shadowland Journal.) The climax comes when Sarkozy is shaking hands with the crowd and one man pulls back, "Ah, no, don't touch me." Sarko, his fixed smile unwavering says, "Get lost, then." To which the man responds, "You got me dirty." To which Sarko responds (this is a polite way of putting it), "Get lost, you jerk."

The French don't like their presidents to talk that way in public. (Chirac's language was plenty salty in private.) But the real problem is that they're discovering they just don't like Sarkozy. The cover story of this week's Le Nouvel Observateur explains why. In the lead article headlined "And if this were to end badly ...," François Bazin writes that other presidents have been unpopular, but for the most part late in their terms. When Chirac's ratings took a nose dive in 1996, early in his first mandate, his prime minister, Alain Juppé, took the fall.

But Sarkozy wants all attention fixed on him, and is managing to attract opprobrium to the office of the president itself. "What's happening today is literally unimaginable," writes Bazin.

"In the current political equation," he says, "there are plenty of other factors that enter into to the bottom line. The international crisis that's sinking growth. A campaign slogan ('Work more to earn more') that's remembered only too well and that's come back like a boomerang. All that creates turbulence, but doesn't justify the sense of an impending crash.The mistake of the president, what has really cost him, goes much further than management of change that's often contrarian and always marked by traces of narcissism that are a bit childish.

"The breaks with past conceptions of a modern presidency that Sarkozy has introduced are all symbolic in nature," writes Bazin. "His cardinal sin is to have called into question, sometimes just with little details or simple matters of behavior, that which legitimizes the authority of the head of state in a country like France." One day he manages to diminish the secular character of the French Republic (which is, to the French, almost sacred). The next he tries to tweak the nation's conscience by making 10-year-olds "adopt" victims their age killed in the Holocaust. On yet another day, he undermines the institutional rules that regulate the relationship a president has with his ministers, parliament, and the constitutional council. "There's no such thing as good governance without measure and distance," says Bazin. "And that presumes that the head of state is something other than a gang leader you can collar and talk to using the familiar 'tu.' And that also implies a certain simplicity needed in the 'republican monarch' ... who should not be transformed into a jet-setter fascinated by the glitz of power...."

"At the center of the rumbling political and media storm, the president has chosen to expose himself more than is reasonable," Bazin concludes " Every day he makes a statement that's offensive or provocative in some way, radicalizing and shamelessly playing up to a disoriented public opinion that just wants to feel secure. Dividing and victimizing. More than a method, it's the formula of every man for himself. Nicolas Sarkozy is out walking with a lightning rod in his hands. The risk for him—and above all for the office that he holds—is that the thunderbolts will not come from the presidency but land on it, which is not at all the same thing."