It is for years with more than others in the political life of a country: 2007 is one for the France of the presidential election, but also because this consultation is, perhaps more than the previous, of particular importance.
The first reason is that the 2002 election had been distorted by the unexpected presence of Jean-Marie Le Pen in the second round, with the frustrations and misunderstandings resulting. The France did therefore not vote "freely" twelve years to elect the Supreme Judicial, cornerstone of its institutions, and more long even for new candidates.
The second reason is more important still. Since the earthquake policy 2002, the country has accumulated the difficulties, both inside and outside, of the failure of the European referendum to double social crisis of the suburbs and the PBS, passing through a debt, a loss of competitiveness and a growing distrust of the population for political and economic elites. He undoubtedly lost some of its prestige and its influence in Europe and on the international scene, and sentence to follow the Germany and other European countries on the path of structural reforms, essential to competitiveness.
Around us, and Europe itself in crisis, complete the world is changing at very high speed, for better and for worse. Globalization is accelerating, new powers emerge, new risks are emerging, but the voice of the France is also little audible on the international scene that was far from the world in our national debates. It is in this context and the challenges that the French should wonder about the choice they will have to be in a few months. What will be the duties of the future President, man or woman, left or right Put the country in the heart of Europe and to contribute thereby to his recovery and restoration of our place in the world; put the France in movement and drive the adjustment so long delayed the economy and society to the challenges of globalization; build on this momentum to remedy social problems of the country.
The political profile of the two favourites for the presidential competition reflects the priority now given by the French to change and a form of breaking the speech and the practice of governing parties. But the desire and the promise of novelty are not sufficient: clarity on the direction, content, and the pace of change is essential to turn our backs to the ambiguities and the false pretences of previous elections, because the country cannot afford to lose five years.
In this field, if electoral tactics forced naturally Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal to a few large gaps source of confusion, the burden of proof is at this stage more in the camp of the Socialist candidate than for the President of the UMP.
The factors that have helped the spectacular breakthrough media and political Ségolène Royal here can develop into handicaps. The accolade by the Socialist Party is the result of his personal popularity, and not the reverse: result, freedom of action, or even contradictions with respect to the party program likely to worry about beyond the Socialist ranks. This uncertainty is reinforced by blurring the background positions that it has expressed to date on several major issues.
Finally and above all, references repeated participatory democracy and opinion for friendly they are, are not adapted to the situation of the country, which calls courageous decisions in a strong and clearly set out vision. They may instead encourage and anchor of elites, in reality the provincialist illusion which suffers the country since he went on vacation in Europe and continues to show his distrust for the market economy, globalization, etc. Wish in the beginning of this year that the upcoming campaign begs not these fundamental questions that the France found his rank.