I must admit that when it comes to politics, I am not the type of incorrigible political junkie so common to Tufts - those who incessantly obsess, speculate and blog over every aspect of every election.
If I was, I probably would have written about the French presidential elections sooner. However, as the first round of the French elections took place on Sunday, I found myself unexpectedly and wholeheartedly absorbed in the outcome, in spite of the fact that I have no right to vote in this country and my time here is nearly up.
I had developed the casual attitude of other Parisians I had talked to, who affect a type of nonchalance when it comes to politics, namely the attitude that all politicians are corrupt imbeciles and elections were, as I wrote in an earlier column, a choice between one piece of merde or another.
But for all their detached posturing, the French really do care about who runs their country, and the numbers speak for themselves. Voter turnout on Sunday was a staggering 84.6 percent of the electorate - the highest in 40 years, and much higher than the meager 64 percent voter turnout in the 2004 U.S. presidential elections, which was higher than usual.
The French presidential elections run on a two-round system. In the first round, the multitude of disparate French political parties (Socialists, Democrats, Communists, Green Party, etc) each put forward a candidate, and the two candidates with the most votes progress to the second round. The winner of the second round is elected President.
The French used to consider the first round the time to "vote with your heart," the chance to vote for the candidate who most closely matched your personal beliefs and pet issues, even if he had an insignificant chance of getting elected.
That all changed in 2002, when the electorate was fractured by divisions in the two main political parties, and an openly xenophobic candidate named Jean-Marie Le Pen made it to the second round, with just 17 percent of the vote.
The French were horrified and embarrassed that this fringe candidate, who has been fined by Germany for Holocaust denial and is hostile to France's huge immigrant community, had made it so far. Of course, in the second round the incumbent Jacques Chirac was reelected, but the fact that the motto of their election was "vote for the crook, not the fascist," certainly explains why the French are so cynical about their politicians.
This time, there were no surprises and the two candidates from the two major parties will be vying for the title of President of the Republic on May 6.
On the right (the French right is more like the U.S. center-left) is Nicolas Sarkozy of the UMP party, a career politician known for his cutting straight talk and almost discomforting ambition to be President. Sarkozy does not mince words and is frank in his open admiration for the United States' laissez faire economic policies and high growth rates. He hopes to reform the cumbersome and protectionist French state, vowing to "put France back to work" and lamenting its paltry 35-hour work week.
He is also serious about confronting France's major immigration integration problems, taking a strong stance on national security and cracking down on the often violent immigrant populations of the suburbs. As interior minister during the massive public insurrections of 2005, he even once vowed to personally aim a pressure hose on the rioters, whom he called "scum."
This hardline stance doesn't sound too far off from Le Pen's xenophobia, but Sarkozy's positions definitely assuage many French fears about maintaining a distinct French identity.
On the Left end of the spectrum, S?©gol??ne Royal is the candidate from the Socialist Party and the polar opposite of Sarkozy. Where Sarkozy is hard and authoritative, Royal is soft and motherly.
An attractive, youngish, well-put-together woman, Royal has been accused of running an incompetent campaign that is full of hot air but is lacking in substance or a definitive program. She is hardly ever consistent on the issues and vacillates from one day to the next. Her main policy point is a 100-point manifesto, a list of demands culled from interviews with the "French people" across the country. She seems to hope to win by promising everything to everyone.
Despite her lackadaisical focus on the issues, the appeal of Royal is obvious, especially to young voters. She is a stark contrast to the entrenched machismo of France's ruling elite class, of whom Sarkozy is just another descendant.
And where Sarkozy promises stark liberalizing changes, Royal's promises of evermore expensive social programs and government support are reassuring to many French who in fact feel very comfortable in the coddling, protectionist embrace of the huge French state, where a high percentage of the working population are civil servants.
Everyone in France agrees that it has big problems - high unemployment, stagnating economy, social unrest in the suburbs, overburdened social system. And if they want something to be done about it, Nicolas Sarkozy seems to be the only man for the job.
But the French are notoriously wary of change. After decades of building a centralized, protectionist state which offers a relatively high quality of life replete with job protection, universal health care, nearly free university education, six weeks paid vacation a year and a host of other tax breaks and benefits, it's easy to see why they so eagerly embrace the status quo. With that in mind, S?©gol??ne Royal still looks like a promising candidate.
Sarkozy won Sunday's election with roughly 30 percent of the vote, compared to roughly 25 percent for Royal, consistent with pre-election predictions. But now that the first round is over, it's anyone's guess as to what will happen.
While the American in me roots for Sarkozy, it seems just as likely that Royal will make a comeback, and life in France, as it always has, will trundle along in its peculiar but somehow functioning way.
Adam Winograd is a junior majoring in international relations. He can be reached at Adam.Winograd@tufts.edu.
