How is it possible that in a deeply right-wing country like France, increasingly afflicted by the evils of populism and indifference to politics, a man of the left has a strong chance of winning? How is it possible that the candidate of the French Socialist Party, at risk of explosion two years ago and still divided last October, at the time of the primaries, can he become president today? True, there is always the undecided unknown, this new tribe that the media in Paris are trying painfully to define, the "invisible France", which can move its vote from left to right, back and forth, very quickly. But if the polls of the last hour are confirmed and Hollande's card will really be the winning one, how did we arrive at this epilogue?
His victory, if it is confirmed by the facts, it will be due largely to the mistakes of his opponent. Apart from the contiguous ones (a campaign that started too late, with the excuse that it was better to create suspense: in reality it was a serious mistake), there is a basic problem for Sarkozy: the hyper-president, as they called it when everyone or almost everyone liked it (even many on the left), began in 2007 by making too many promises. Many of these are right, mind you. The reform of a relatively efficient but elephantine public function now too expensive for a country that is growing slowly. The reform of the labor market, to adapt to the competition not only from emerging countries, but even from Germany, now cheaper than France for the cost of labour. Sarkozy then broke one taboo after another. Hearing him speak in the last few days, with a practically far-right speech, to painfully chase the vote of those who voted for Marine Le Pen in the first round, one forgets who did it. A right-wing man who talked about ecology. Who chose for a key post such as that of foreign minister a man from NGOs with a left-wing logo like Bernard Kouchner.
Sarkozy wanted to change everything. Then there was the economic crisis (he always says it, to justify himself, and it's partly true). But above all he made the mistake of launching too many construction sites, in an anxious, excessive, disorganized way: too many promises, too difficult to keep them all. There have also been various affaires that have more than touched him, accusations (proceedings are in progress) of having collected bribes: money is a weak point of ours, like the fascination it suffers from the rich, he was born in a context bourgeois, but in an economically more or less decayed family. However, beyond everything, what the vast majority of the French hold against him is precisely that he has not kept his promises. So he also forgets what he maybe he did good. Like the interventions conceived after the collapse of 2008, when it decided to launch a large 35 billion euro bond loan, to relaunch competitiveness of the France system, now being implemented. And that perhaps it will bear fruit, especially those 19 billion invested in the university, which are already serving to transform many universities. He will also forget that his fibrillation was served in certain junctures at an international level, such as the financial crisis of 2008. In the second half of that year, France assured the presidency of the European Union. And it was one of the most difficult semesters (also for the drift in Georgia) but certainly better managed. At the time, the French were proud to have a decision-making President like him.
The idyll seems to be over. And for a while. If Hollande wins, it's also due to Sarkozy's disappointment, it's useless to rack your brains. The programs of the two candidates are obviously different, but we are no longer in Mitterrand's time. Hollande promises more taxes and less public spending, exactly like Sarkozy: on the economic front, it is no longer France that decides. Hollande is a serious person, who smacks of numbers. But he doesn't have an overflowing charisma. He has never even been a minister. He was a lifelong party technocrat. If it will be a miracle on Sunday evening, it won't be only thanks to him.
