The French election on its own terms

Nicolas Sarkozy's victory - needless to say for such a divisive figure - has been interpreted in various ways. By Tuesday night, the French media was largely taken up by his Malta holiday, and with what it represented given its luxury, huge expense and close ties to a French billionaire industrialist. In the Anglo-American media, interpretations focused on Mr Sarkozy's economic reform programme - but largely ended up misrepresenting him, in my view, to a significant degree.

People watching CNN would have seen him described as the "conservative" candidate. Readers of the British broadsheets would have seen him described as someone who would make the French "work harder" by introducing Thatcherite reforms.

Yet, all these descriptions are explicitly denied by Mr Sarkozy himself in his book, Ensemble, published last March. True, one must make place for rhetoric. But Thatcherite? Mr Sarkozy is against Turkish membership of the EU because it would reduce the Union to a free-market zone.

And his social vision does not divide society, as Baroness Thatcher did, into the producers of wealth and the spongers of the welfare state. Mr Sarkozy projected himself as the candidate of those who "get up for work early in the morning" - but identified the problem of work as largely to do with labour laws and trade union leaders, not the vast majority of people.

These distinctions are not just pedantry. The same observers who describe him as Thatcherite then express surprise at some of his economic actions while Minister of Finance. Clearly, we need to learn to see Mr Sarkozy on his own terms, against a French background, and not an Anglo-Saxon one. Particularly if, as Maltese, we want to understand and evaluate his plans for, say, a Mediterranean Union, or for a modification of the rules of the eurozone.

Then there is the matter of understanding the electoral result. It may still be too early to predict what consequences will flow from it. The difficulties of prediction have partly to do with sorting out Mr Sarkozy's rhetoric from how and to what degree, in practice, he will implement his programme. Over the last 14 years, France has had three prime ministers from Mr Sarkozy's party, all of whom had the determination to reform the French economy, and all of whom greatly modified their plans in the face of public protests.

Other difficulties of prediction have to do with the details of the result. The majority of French youth - some 58 per cent - voted for Ségolène Royal. It is the precarious economic circumstances of this segment of the electorate that Mr Sarkozy's economic policies will have to address. Yet, he will be facing a hostile audience.

The current disarray of the socialists will probably serve him well for the June parliamentary elections. But beyond that appointment, nothing can be taken for granted. The socialists have quickly recovered from disaster before. In the 1993 parliamentary elections, the party lost some 70 per cent of its seats. By 1997, however, after two years of the government led by the Gaullist Alain Juppé (characterised by strikes over attempted economic reforms), the socialists regained government - and proceeded to introduce the 35-hour week (without any reduction of pay) that Mr Sarkozy so dislikes.

The possibility of a quick socialist recovery is not the only danger Mr Sarkozy will need to watch out for. Although the centrist candidate, Francois Bayrou, polled 12 per cent less than Mr Sarkozy in the first round of the presidential election, on the eve that vote, an Ispos opinion poll reported that in a Bayrou-Sarkozy face-off in the second round, Mr Bayrou was expected to win 52 per cent of the votes.

That poll reflected the general consensus among French observers I spoke to, one of whom was rooting for Mr Sarkozy. It is not yet completely part of the past. Mr Bayrou promised gentler reforms than Mr Sarkozy. He also diagnosed part of the French malaise politically, claiming the aims of the Fifth Republic (founded in 1958) had been perverted with too much concentration of power. He offers a "Third Way" à la francaise, which envisages a different role for the French state than Mr Sarkozy does.

It is not clear what Mr Bayrou's political future is. He leads a small party but has stated his intention to found a larger one in time for the June elections. For that to happen, he will need to attract some socialists to break away from their party.

There is a faction, associated with former Prime Minister Michel Rocard, that might well do that. An alternative would be an alliance with the Socialist Party - not necessarily now, but perhaps at a time when Mr Sarkozy's reforms are hurting most without any advantage being apparent.

An alliance between the centre and the reformist left would be a challenge for Mr Sarkozy. But he may well manage to destroy Mr Bayrou electorally before such an alliance has time to coalesce. Several of Mr Bayrou's MPs have been elected in seats that Mr Sarkozy's party chose not to contest. They may well come under pressure from Mr Sarkozy to abandon Mr Bayrou or else face a serious contest for their seat.

All these possibilities mean that the consequences of Sunday's result are difficult to predict, and may remain so for up to a year. However, a discussion of the campaign themes and electoral result may still serve to highlight themes and possibilities to watch and follow, not only but especially from Maltese vantage points.

Hence why, this Saturday, at 10 a.m., the Academy for the Development of a Democratic Environment (AZAD) is organising a seminar on the French presidential elections. The speakers include Alfred Sant, speaking on the impact of the election on France, and Fr Peter Serracino Inglott, on the impact on Europe. The discussion should help clarify Maltese understandings of one of our major European partners, and about which many Maltese still know too little.

Further information about the seminar can be obtained by dialling 2124 7515.

The author is chairman of AZAD.