In Paris last weekend Nicholas Sarkozy was enthroned by his party as their candidate in this year’s presidential election. His selection was no surprise; he was the only candidate on the ballot after all, and just like similar one-candidate ballots, he received a resounding 98 percent of the votes cast.
The enthronement — and its scale and grandeur called to mind in many a commentator Napoleon’s self-coronation two centuries ago — was glitzy and slick. He not only looks the part of the presidential candidate but breathes it and walks it. His body language unambiguously cries out: This is what I was born to do. For this is a man who at the age of 15 decided he would one day be president. In another century or another continent he may have made perfect dictator material: He has ruthless ambition, single-minded determination and supreme self-confidence. But he was born into democracy and he plays politics like a champ. Watching him at work you cannot help but be impressed by the sheer fluency of his performance.
Sarkozy is a phenomenon. He inspires admiration and loathing in equal measure. His supporters see him as the great white knight. His enemies see him as a devastating threat. Even within his own constituency he is hated as much as he is loved. President Chirac has refused to endorse him and has yet to rule out running for a third term — despite the fact that Sarkozy has been elected by Chirac’s own party! But then there is history between the two men. Sarkozy was once Chirac’s protégée, until the day in 1995 when he betrayed his mentor by supporting Balladur, the then prime minister, in a presidential run-off with Chirac. Et tu Brutus. The betrayal has never been forgotten.
Looking at Sarkozy on screen, I found myself agreeing with some of his words and impressed by his media skills, but I could not shake-off my instinctive dislike for the man. Thinking it through I realized this is because I perceive him to be anti-Arab and anti-Muslim. This stems from my first experience of Sarko as the French like to call him.
It was back in November 2005 when France saw a wave of riots in its impoverished suburbs. I watched him take part in a TV debate. He was — and still is — France’s interior minister and keen to show himself as tough on crime. When the debate turned to immigration, Sarkozy, himself the son of a Hungarian immigrant, rightly pointed out that the riots were not about immigration. However he then went on to talk about integration and to question the ability or willingness of Muslims to integrate into French society. He spoke of cultural incompatibility telling the audience that there is a difference between an immigrant from Spain, Germany or Hungary and one from the Middle East. This marked him as an Islamophobe in my mind.
Yet his record on Muslim issues is contradictory. He supported state funding for mosques, a rather brave stand for a French politician. Contrast this for instance with the case of Nice, France’s fifth largest city with over a million inhabitants and a sizable Muslim population, where the local government has consistently opposed plans for creating a mosque in the city center.
He has also been an advocate of positive discrimination, a controversial policy in France where the republican model holds that the state should not differentiate between people based on ethnicity. Recognizing the magnitude of discrimination against people with Arab or African names or who live on deprived estates, he has pushed for policies to enforce equal opportunities in recruitment.
On the other hand he is firmly opposed to Turkey joining the EU, reiterating his opposition during his acceptance speech last Sunday. He also takes a hard line not only on immigration but on security arguing that France and Europe are under clear and present threat from “Islamic” extremism.
When it comes to the Arab world he is seen as distinctly pro-Israeli. During the Israeli bombardment of Lebanon last summer he criticized Hezbollah, spoke of Israel’s right to protect itself and, unlike his country’s president, did not call for an immediate cease-fire. As for Iraq, he called the war a mistake last Sunday but had previously attacked France’s “arrogance” in not supporting the US.
Essentially Sarkozy can be summed up as robustly pro-American in his foreign policy and a hard-nosed vote-chaser domestically. His views on the Middle East or on terrorism usually run parallel to statements coming out of the White House or Ten Downing Street. His stand on Turkish EU membership may run counter to US policy but it is a vote winner at home. Similarly his anti-immigration rhetoric is clearly aimed at capturing votes, particularly from the extreme right.
Sarkozy is often compared to Napoleon — partly in reference to his height — and to Blair, for the way he courts the media and big business, but he is very much a Thatcher when it comes to economics. His manifesto speaks of encouraging and rewarding hard work, of extensive economic reform to boost economic growth, of cutting taxation and paring down bureaucracy, of decentralization and cuts in public sector staffing, of social mobility and increased opportunity.
Though a right-winger he is not afraid of wooing the left. In his speech last Sunday, he cited Blum and Jaures — historical figures from the French left — and presented himself as a candidate who will unite France and break down social, political and cultural divisions. In a shrewd piece of spin, his acceptance speech saw him take on a gentle, caring persona. Both his tone and his message were conciliatory and inclusive. His new campaign slogan is “together everything is possible”, coincidentally a slogan almost identical to one used by the socialists over a decade ago. Can a leopard change its spots? Charlie-Hebdo, a left-leaning satirical magazine thinks not. Its front cover this week shows a caricature of Sarkozy as a salivating dog, the caption reads: “Sarkozy has changed. Beware nice pitbull!”
Sarkozy may not have changed but he represents change. His key word is “rupture”. Despite being part of the current government he presents himself as a break from the status quo. And he is. Unlike other French politicians he did not graduate from the Ecole Nationale d’Administration but trained as a lawyer. He speaks articulately without pretension; nothing is hidden or subtle preferring instead to be direct and hard-hitting. His approach is one of problem solving rather than the grandiose philosophizing of Chirac and others.
He is an unabashed supporter of the Anglo-Saxon model and is not scared of taking the French bureaucracy head-on. He wants to see France shift her foreign policy to come into line with that of the US. It’s little wonder that the folks in London and Washington are said to be quietly rooting for him. But not me. As an Arab, I sincerely hope that Sarkozy does not become the next president of France. But if I were French, perhaps I’d feel differently.
