According to a recent poll that I can not find references, 79% of French people do not know who to vote for the occasion the presidential election this year 2007. It pretends to be surprised when it is always the same thing. Disillusionment following the unfulfilled promises of the candidates elected and suspicions on the promises made by the current contenders raise a legitimate fear on the part of voters. To explain this confusion, a little critical analysis of our political system is needed. The presidential system sought by General de Gaulle (one senior military so) with the Constitution of the 5th Republic (custom written by his aide Michel Debre) was (and is always) a soft dictatorship where the principle of universal suffrage election of the President of the Republic gave the illusion of a modern democracy. But where the President-General gave a few more pledges democratic principles including the use before the French referendum to confirm his political guidelines, his successors have confiscated the power that had given the people by favoring the way government at the expense of Parliament and of the popular consultation. The holdup led to an autocracy that décribilise each day a little more political action and those who are elected officials.
What is the balance after 12 years of Chirac at the Elysee? Zero. What is therefore now the presidential election, except to save the appearances that we are still a democracy?
Unlike other developed countries, the Parliament (National Assembly and Senate) is at best a second thought (there lays sometimes interesting reports) and the worst and unfortunately far too often a recording chamber where the elected representatives, most of jobholders local mandates, manifest their existence by the horns in front of TV cameras sessions on topical issues. If anyone knows her MP and his record, let me know!
Our political system is completely ossified and despite calls from some (Montebourg, Bayrou, Voynet, Buffet, Bové ...) to go to a Sixth Republic, it does not feel a great amenity from the leaders in place and likely future really want to change the rules for fear of opening up the democratic system as it is entitled to expect (" for the people and by the people") and would soon make hurt their career and political career.
However, the crisis in France is not so much economic and institutional: it is because our institutions are weak and our political elites addicted to power and bribes offered to command the economic policy. The famous phrase of Prime Minister Jospin on his powerlessness in the face layoffs at Michelin in 1999 is emblematic of the resignation of policy on economic logic and especially financial.
Globalization (without railings) presented as being in the sense of history and explanation as to the difficulties of exogenous our country is a quibble repeated at will to hide the incompetence of our elected officials and their unwillingness to self-reform. The system benefits few at the expense of all others but it's always others that are being asked to adapt, to make efforts, citing the inaction of the French response to the wonderful world of neo-liberalism , corporatization of public employees, the excess of those lazy civil servants, the refusal to face the sacrifices of joy and happiness of wage flexibility and use disposable only bulwark against relocation, the failure to privatize freely, etc. .
short, the "every man for himself" built into a dogma of political action is the only possible path to the alternative "comply or resign." This view is less shared by a majority of French and mistrust vis-à-vis the current electoral farce could not be more justified.
The politicking has taken precedence over real politics, where the debate took the place of ideological base for discussion and selection of candidates (see the televised confrontations Giscard-Mitterrand). Membership (blind) of the two largest parties that are the PS and UMP capitalist system and liberalism erases the ideological differences. So much so that today it is the form that prevails on the merits to distinguish the different candidates between them and it is sometimes difficult to know who speaks for whom. Thus, when Segolene Royal, Jospin as already in 2002, is reluctant to say that his program is a socialist, you say that the Socialist Party should be renamed "Liberal Left" or as in Germany, "Social Democratic Party."
Given this trend bipartisanship, "small" parties are struggling to exist and coexist. Despite displaying more radical beliefs, they are too numerous to be identified so credible. There are as follows: 4 anti-liberal party (PCF, LCR, LO, Bove and co), 4 green trend (The Greens, Cap 21, MEI, France in action), 2 are shooting the wad on immigrants ( FN, MPF), one who is hunting on all lands (CPNT), excluding the nebula of unknown and wacky as the "fun Party" (sic) headed by a certain Cindy Lee, barbie doll while silicon, especially Front and offering with girlfriends adjust in kind sponsorship of elected officials in his favor!
As usual, the media and their favorite weapon, the poll almost daily, trying to focus the debate on the two headliners that are UMPS Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal. Except that, seeing the frustration of voters face to ready-to-think proposed Bayrou has prompted in part by playing the card of synthesis right / left, center ball, and dream in the second round outisder or even downright elected (word of the Virgin Mary, dixit Pasqua ...).
My dear readers, citizens, do you take over the head. I'm here. Indeed, I suggest you make a modest contribution by reviewing our candidates so that you can make an informed decision. I warn you right away: I can not be in complete good faith but which will, hopefully, debate.
For my part, I already made my choice but I can not reveal to you that at the end of this blog to block presidential campaign, just before the first round, hey hey hey ...
The first candidate to go to my roping fine meats will be a candidate in the person of Voynet (Greens). He was loudly applauded and is encouraged because she will need it.
A table!
