Ok, the results of the first turn of the French elections just dropped in. So the candidate the french will choose is one between Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal.
Nicolas Sarkozy is a right-wing man, and has ideas on strengthening police force and immigration laws, fighting "assistanat" (people who live off state assistance without trying to participate in society), and placing merit as a dominant value on the "social scale".
Ségolène Royal is a left-wing woman who places people at the heart of her government, trying to promote an embryonic "participating democracy", through the use of debates and internet forums. She relies a lot on sidekicks, and has socialist ideas concerning economic and social questions.
Sarkozy is seen by opposing people as "dangerous, tyrannic, abusive of his powers, neglecting immigrated people" - sometimes even as far as a "fake extreme-right".
Royal is seen by her detractors as "empty, void, without personality or a real ambition to get the France straight, talking lots but acting little, and way too laxist".
2nd turn will be on May 6th.
Debate with passion, or flame if you want to. Whatever. Please try to keep jokes involving frogs, baguettes, accordion, surrenders and gays as few as possible. We know them all, and actually a good part of us do find them funny. And yeah, french railroad is on a strike. I know.
I think Royal has a pretty good shot at it, depends on how the centrists vote in the second round, but I'd like to think that they're more likely to go left than right.
I guess we'll find out soon enough.
Can Sarkozy be trusted with the atomic bomb?
>>3 >>4
I don't think Nukes are an issue here. In fact Sarkozy's attitude towards international relationships is way more "secure" than Royal's, which is more unadapted, like "hey hey everyone loves everyone, we're all happy" - socialist way. Not that it's bad, but I don't think it's really viable. Sarkozy is heading towards strengthening the national cohesion, while having a more mature diplomacy. That doesn't mean nuking everyone, that just means knowing who is who - and where they are, and what they want. We live in a time of rising powers who want their share of the cake, after all.
>>2
I also think that way. Most people who voted centrist (18% or so) were undecisive about Royal or Sarkozy and chose the inbetween. Royal will get most if not all of the left-wing votes. Even if not high in %, they are numerous. Sarkozy will probably get extreme-right votes, being kinda consequent (10% for LePen), and some other.
On the whole, I think Royal has more chance now, but not by far. The debates and speeches which will take place in the next few days will probably be decisive.
I'm shocked guys, usually you can't get a word in edgewise as soon as France is mentioned on an English board...
I agree with >>5, the people who didn't vote PN (LePen) will decide this. Right now I'd say UMP has the advantage. Slight edge in polls, more experienced candidate. Maybe? Meh.
I'm also surprised at the descriptions OP gave, they match my impressions. How I laughed a few months ago when I saw Ms. Segolene giving a minister a list of political prisoners she wanted freed, yes, madam, you just have to ask... All in all I'd vote PS hoping on Segolene getting some qualified ministers. I just know Sarkozy would run the country with an iron grip (some would say he already has from 2005's riots) I mean he's going for votes from the extreme right, guh.
>>when I saw Ms. Segolene giving a minister a list of political prisoners she wanted freed
forgot to mention that was at the end of her visit to China
>>6
Iron hand, maybe. And I fear that UMP ministers will do other mistakes like DADVSI... but I think in the end, what our country needs might be an iron hand. Of course, Sarkozy's getting extreme right votes - just as Royal's getting extreme left. I don't see communists vote for Sarkozy, and I don't see Le Pen call to vote for Royal. That doesn't make them extreme as well, as far as I know.
Economically, what Royal is promising is good in a short term, but will only amplify the crisis in a long term. And I'm already considering moving to another country with the actual situation, so if things get worse here...
Well, I'm still undecided. It looks like we'll have to choose between civil war, or war. Wee.
Vive la Sixieme Republique!
Okay, about 3 hours ago the results have been given. Mr N. Sarkozy will be the next president of the French Republic. He will be given his powers on May, 16th, and will be there for 5 years.
The next important vote is due in June (10 & 16), to decide of the government.
For those who have any interest in politics outside of Japan/Korea debates and US elections.
>>11
And now the french are rioting (again).
Beeing from germany, I kind of fear that the currently very good french-german political relationship will go down the drain under Sarkozy, which is sad.
"Nicolas Sarkozy is a lawyer and has a very strong pro-software patent stance and was behind the hardline DADVSI copyright law (our local DMCA). He was also behind the introduction of voting machines without paper trail requirements, and of the "secret" report about their validity (no citizen could get the report."
...could the votes have been rigged?
>>13
What are you quoting? I think I don't see the correlation between your first sentences and the last one. Plus it was more RDDV behind DADVSI than N. Sarkozy, but whatever. Remember, be they right or wrong, accusing him of having rigged the votes - this without any proof - is the same as saying all the people that voted for him are nothing. I'm not really pro-Sarkozy, but I don't like that kind of assumptions. It's far more anti-democratic than anything you can accuse him of.
>>12 might be right, we'll see in the days to come. For the french-german relationship, I don't know, though.
In some time, we'll see what he's up to. And if he fails hard, well... you know what they say: it's not people who should fear their government, but government who should fear their people. Yeah, it's from V for Vendetta. If you see what I mean.
Hello, I would to know if you think things are really going to change under him? Asking because he's from the same party as M. Chirac.
Moreover, what were the big issues of the campaign according to you? It seemed from watching the french news and local coverage (Quebec) that his tough stance on immigration was a big vote-getter. What else made him popular?
Of course we don't know if anything is going to change. We wouldn't have been, either, it it had been Mrs Royal, or any other candidate... minus the extremes, maybe. Because all in all it's just politics. He's from the same party, but isn't what one would call "close" to the president - the future ex president, that is.
I think the issues have been, in majority, what he said and done before the elections, which showed he effectively wanted to put some of the values he defends in action, authority first in line. That alone, plus some "help" from a good share of left-wingers who depicted him as the devil, a danger for the democracy. I read same thing happend in Nederlands, but whatever. Apart from that, his campaign was almost flawless (I'm talking on a campaign POV, not on ideas, which are attackable - and defendable), and that probably greatly contributed to his victory as seen how his opponent's campaign was heavily disturbed: last minute planning changes, Mrs Royal being constantly late at meetings, people leaving her team, and so on.
It was not so much immigration than security that brought him a lot of votes, even if the two seem somehow related (often, over-related, but that's another subject...). When bad stuff happens way too much, and everything is allowed by default, when no action is taken, when people feel that 'outlaws' are more privilegied than victims, they want the state to react. The 2002 elections sadly showed that, with a rise of the extreme right. Without himself going that far, he proposed some things that people felt answered their demands.
One of his other important campaign axis that brought him votes was the idea of "Work-Merit". He wants to give more advantages to people who work (or at least actively try to find work), and to disadvantage people we know as "leeches", who profit of our not-so-bad social system while having nothing in output to our society. I don't really know if that's really good or bad, but I think either way we really needed some change on that point. Our international stereotype will not make me lie on that one, hehe.
Here's a link (in French) retracing his political career:
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-823448,36-906438,0.html
An interesting link (english):
http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article2519064.ece
Another one, still in english:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7ce6b7ac-fbf5-11db-93a4-000b5df10621,dwp_uuid=e17a8288-890f-11db-a876-0000779e2340.html