Left to come back

Nicolas Sarkozy left his ministerial post to take part in the presidential race

On Monday, March 26, Nicolas Sarkozy resigned from his post as French Interior Minister in order to freely campaign for the presidency without causing criticism from other candidates for using his official position. Francois Baroin, who previously served as head of the Ministry of Overseas Departments and Territories, was appointed in his place.

It might seem that by leaving his ministerial post, Nicolas Sarkozy will lose part of his image as a “man of action”: he will have to be just a candidate, on a par with the anti-globalist Jose Beauvais, who barely collected 500 signatures to take part in the elections, or Frederic Nieus from the Hunt party , fishing, nature and traditions" (CPNT). This is only partly true. Because now that Sarkozy is no longer a minister, it is finally possible to take stock of his five years in government, and these results may turn out to be the strongest trump card of his election campaign.

Inconvenient man

Nicolas Sarkozy became head of the ministry in 2002 after Jacques Chirac won the presidential election. Sarkozy himself was counting on a higher position - the post of prime minister. However, in this case, the unresolved mutual hostility of Chirac and Sarkozy played a role. Sarkozy did not support Chirac in the 1995 presidential elections, preferring another RPR candidate, Edouard Balladur. Then he was accused of renegade and booed at the party congress, and after Chirac won, Sarkozy began a “crossing of the desert” that lasted almost seven years. Only in 2001, on the eve of new elections, did the politicians make peace and Sarkozy joined Chirac’s team. The post of Prime Minister was taken by Jean-Pierre Raffarin, and Nicolas Sarkozy became “the chief gendarme of France,” as freedom-loving citizens call the Minister of the Interior, an unpopular position at all times and under all regimes. The crime situation itself, which had developed by the time Sarkozy came to the ministry, was extremely difficult. Statistics showed a depressingly rapid increase in crime, the forces of law and order were increasingly losing authority in society, and the socialist government of Lionel Jospin responded to this by reducing their number. In 2001, it came to the point of mass protest demonstrations by police unions. The issue of ensuring public safety was often simply ignored by those in power, but this only led to the fact that, quite unexpectedly for politicians, the topic of security and curbing crime, especially in immigrant neighborhoods, became the main one in the 2002 presidential campaign and, in the end, led to the second tour of the leader of the right-wing radical National Front party Jean-Marie Le Pen, who initially advocated a tough and uncompromising fight against crime and immigration.

Nicolas Sarkozy and Edouard Balladur. Photo from the site eur.news1.yimg.com

Thus, Sarkozy's task was not only to ensure respect for public order, but, more importantly, had a clear political overtone: to reduce the influence of right-wing and nationalist ideas on the minds of ordinary French people. Otherwise, Le Pen would have had every chance of winning the 2007 elections. At the same time, it was obvious that the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs would be criticized from the right for doing little, and, of course, criticized from the left for being too harsh, trampling on the fundamental rights of offenders and using “repression” instead of “dialogue.” In principle, the vindictive boss appointed Sarkozy to this post not without the ulterior motive that the overly ambitious and independent young politician would break his neck.

Inside the Ministry

Sarkozy took up the matter with his characteristic energy and determination, which - a rare quality for a politician - were combined with moderation. He introduced a completely new “hard” type of management into the ministry. Speaking to police commissioners, he demanded clear results in reducing crime, while announcing that good work would be rewarded with cash bonuses. In 2004, 5 million euros were allocated for these purposes. He not only stopped the reduction in the number of law enforcement forces, but in 2002, on his initiative, a law was passed through parliament, according to which an additional 13,500 places were created in the police and gendarmerie. In the same year, he created the so-called Local Response Groups (GIR), whose task was to combat shadow business. Over five years, GIR seized more than 2,000 small arms, 6 tons of anasha, more than 100 tons of heroin, 70 tons of cocaine and about 70 million euros from criminals. Under Sakrkosi, the information and technical support of law enforcement forces was significantly improved. The police DNA catalog was fully automated and expanded: if in 2002 there were only 4,000 samples, by 2007 their number had increased a hundredfold. The fingerprint database was also computerized and expanded to 2.5 million samples, causing concern even among some law-abiding French people.

Meeting between Sarkozy and Raffarin with the police. Photo from placedupre.hautetfort.com

In 2003, on the initiative of Sarkozy, the National Statistical Center for Crime was created, whose task was to track the dynamics of growth or decline in the number of crimes. Nicolas Sarkozy also established closer cooperation between the police and the gendarmerie, which traditionally reports not to the Ministry of the Interior, but to the Ministry of Defense.

Sarkozy's laws

However, these were just “internal” measures aimed at improving the functioning of law enforcement agencies. Much wider fame, and with it hatred and sympathy, brought Sarkozy laws to combat crime and ensure public order. On March 18, 2003, a law was adopted that immediately became known as the Sarkozy Law. He prohibited gatherings and get-togethers in hallways and stairwells, to which loafers from the suburbs were so prone. At the same time, punishment was introduced for “aggressive begging”, which turned into a real scourge of large cities, where it was often impossible to walk along the main streets without a certain young man taking you by the hand and asking for five euros, and then starting to openly express his dissatisfaction if you refuse him. It was forbidden, under pain of punishment, to insult or openly express one's contempt for state symbols. Visitors or those passing through France were prohibited from illegally settling in houses, organizing squats, and the like. Is it worth mentioning who this law was mainly directed against? Its provisions primarily concerned representatives of the “multicultural” youth of the suburbs, many of whom did not want to make any efforts to integrate into French society. However, it became obvious to Sarkozy that the issue of maintaining public security is not only about strengthening repressive measures, but is much broader and involves pursuing a thoughtful policy to adapt marginal social groups and immigrants to the realities of the Fifth Republic. A natural consequence of this approach was the revival by the head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the project to create a French Muslim Council (Conseil français du culte musulman, CFCM). Sarkozy managed to enlist the support of leading Muslim organizations: the Grand Mosque of Paris, the National Federation of Muslims of France and the Union of Islamic Organizations of France. In April 2003, elections to the CFCM took place, after which the Council became the official partner of the government on all matters relating to the practice of Islam in France. However, even this initiative, which was completely in line with the concept of “dialogue” so defended by the left, was subjected to severe criticism. The Council, they say, has become just a subordinate structure, an instrument in the hands of the “clever” Sarkozy. Thus, despite the complexity of the task that faced the minister, he not only managed to cope with it, but also gained even greater popularity: he was considered by many as the only person who was able to somehow stop the growth of crime. All this contrasted very sharply with the rather sluggish successes of the Raffarin government, which could not but cause concern for Chirac. And Sarkozy's attempts to go beyond his powers and engage in social policy probably only increased the boss's irritation. Therefore, after the right was defeated in regional elections in 2004, Chirac took advantage of this to make a series of personnel changes in his government. Sarkozy was forced to leave the police and head the Ministry of Economy and Finance, replacing Roger Mayor.

Chief of Economics and Finance

Despite the fact that there is little in common between the ministries of the interior and the economy, Sarkozy quickly managed to get used to the new environment. This is largely explained by the fact that from 1993 to 1995 he served as budget minister in the government of Eduard Balladur. In addition, Sarkozy is a close friend of many major French businessmen. Immediately before the 2002 presidential elections, Sarkozy, who hoped to take the post of prime minister if he won, held a series of working consultations with representatives of big business on the general directions of the economic policy of the future government. Chirac demanded that Sarkozy take effective measures to reduce public debt. In principle, Sarkozy's economic policy corresponded to the main directions of the neoliberal concept: cutting taxes, encouraging the privatization of state-owned enterprises and supporting big business. Under Sarkozy, the consolidated property tax (ISF) and inheritance taxes were reduced, and the taxation of people in a civil marriage was simplified. In addition, thanks to his efforts, the largest communications company, France Telecom, was privatized. The Ministry of Economy also provided very significant financial support to one of the largest private companies, Alstom, and facilitated the merger of Sanofi and Aventis. Sarkozy's activities, especially in reducing taxes, caused a sharp protest from the socialists in the opposition, who, in addition to the “chief gendarme of France,” began to call him “a representative of the dictatorship of money.”

Minister "Kercher"

However, Sarkozy did not remain as Minister of Economy for long. After another government crisis caused by the failure of the vote on the draft European constitution in 2005 - the majority of the French opposed it, thereby delaying its adoption indefinitely - Prime Minister Jean-Pierre Raffarin resigned. In his place, Chirac's "favorite", the "most faithful of the faithful" Dominique de Villepin, was appointed, and Sarkozy returned to the Ministry of the Interior, completely unaware that very soon the department he had reorganized would have to prove its effectiveness in action.

"The War of the Suburbs." Photo from presidentielle-2007.net

The fact is that the policy announced by Chirac to overcome the “social divide” seems to have made this gap even wider. Moreover, Sarkozy's successor in the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Dominique de Villepin, in the best Chirac traditions, chose not to get into trouble and did not continue Sarkozy's rather tough line in suppressing crime, and hooliganism in particular. Upon his return to the ministry, Sarkozy drew attention to the fact that some judges were releasing guilty repeat offenders who had been involved in the riots, and called these judges to account. In addition, it was discovered that some provisions of the “Sarkozy Law” regarding the ban on squats are not being implemented. This led to the fact that in the summer of 2005, in Paris alone, many fires occurred due to the fault of squatters, killing 24 people, including 18 children. A campaign to eliminate squats was launched, which caused anger and protests from numerous non-governmental organizations, which saw this as a prelude to the expulsion of all illegal immigrants from French territory. But the situation in suburbs populated by people from immigrant families continued to be of particular concern. Many of them turned into real ghettos, where the police were afraid to even go. Attacking random patrols was a common activity for restless teenagers. In June 2005, in the suburb of Courneueve, a major “showdown” took place between two warring factions, once again showing that in France there are zones where the law means nothing. At the same time, Sarkozy’s own attitude towards this kind of disorder has become much harsher. He was no longer a newcomer who had just arrived at the ministry, and probably felt the real support of the employees, which, coupled with accumulated irritation, made him promise to “take a Kaercher and clean out the suburbs” (Kaercher is a brand of German washing machines that wash away dirt with a strong water pressure). The minister was attacked by all and sundry; he was accused of deliberately provoking a crisis, of racism, chauvinism, authoritarianism, and was dubbed a “combat robot.” It is unknown how much Sarkozy's statements influenced the approach of the crisis, but it broke out four months later in November 2005 and was called the “war of the suburbs.” In response to the death of two “multicultural” teenage hooligans who, fleeing from the police, climbed into a transformer booth, where they were electrocuted, a real “intifada” unfolded in the suburbs of large French cities, with the burning of cars, shops, clashes between protesters and the police and gendarmerie. One of the distinctive features of French society is its tendency to intellectualize any problem, to offer many interpretations that vary one or another aspect of what is happening, obscuring its essence. Immediately after the start of the disgusting suburban brawl, opinions appeared in the press that in this way residents of the suburbs, deprived of a chance to achieve anything in this life by a cruel society, were expressing their social protest. The protest was expressed mainly at night. Journalists went to the suburbs as if they were on the front line, interviewed “protesters” who, prudently covering their faces with hoods, muttered about the lack of respect for them, about the fascist policemen, about the fact that their patience had run out - and someone threatened, that if this goes on, they will take out pistols. At this difficult moment, Sarkozy turned out to be one of the few politicians who were not afraid to call a spade a spade. He said during his visit to Argenteuil that all these protesters are nothing more than "bastards." The minister declared “zero tolerance” for rioters and declared a state of emergency throughout the entire metropolis. He was consistent and did not back down in the face of numerous accusations against him from famous artists, athletes and cultural figures who said that he was only adding fuel to the fire. As one would expect, after overcoming the crisis, Sarkozy's popularity increased. At the same time, he became stronger in the idea that ensuring public order and security is a complex issue that involves resolving the situation in the field of immigration control and developing programs at the state level to integrate residents of disadvantaged suburbs into society. It was in this direction that his subsequent activities as head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs developed. Obviously, to some extent it again went beyond his competence, but the positive point was that, apart from Sarkozy, none of the politicians from the “Chirac camp” would ever dare to touch upon such a sensitive issue. Sarkozy proposed a draft immigration law, which was adopted by the National Assembly on July 30, 2006. The law introduces the concept of “selected immigration” and provides, firstly, for tightening the conditions for the legalization of illegal immigrants who arrived in France in one way or another and living there without papers, and secondly, for a return to the so-called “work immigration” - that is, attracting France only those immigrants whose services are required in one or another sector of the French economy, and not forever, but for the duration of the contract.

Defeat Chirac

In the run-up to the 2007 presidential elections, it became clear that Sarkozy was not only the most ambitious of the center-right politicians, but also one of the most effective. His authority in the Union for Popular Movement party increased significantly. This inevitably gave rise to friction with other party leaders and, above all, with Chirac himself, who in 2004, describing his relationship with Sarkozy, said: “I order, he executes.” Chirac could not like Sarkozy's growing popularity, especially since this popularity was acquired without his direct participation and meant only one thing - Chirac would not have to run for a third term. Concerns intensified after Sarkozy was elected chairman of the Union for a Popular Movement party in 2004: 85.1 percent of delegates to the party congress voted for him. At the same time, Sarkozy was also a minister, which significantly increased his political weight.

Nicolas Sarkozy and Jacques Chirac. Photo from web.mac.com

Despite this, Chirac tried to do everything possible to prevent Sarkozy from running for president, using the old Caesarist principle of “divide and rule.” A real behind-the-scenes struggle began, when some party leaders were pitted against others. The president made it clear in every possible way that he was impressed not by Sarkozy, but by Villepin. On the eve of the election of a candidate from the Union for a Popular Movement, another “horse” appeared - Defense Minister Michel Alliot-Marie. There was talk about how unusual it would be if the main contenders for the presidency were two women - Allio-Marie and Ségolène Royal. It all ended, however, much more prosaically - with the convincing victory of Nicolas Sarkozy in the internal party elections in January 2007. But even after this, Chirac, to whom it became clear that he would have to give in anyway, continued to play for time. Only on March 11, he announced that he would not stand for a third term, but did not say which candidate he would support. Many saw this as a hint that the president would speak out for the centrist Francois Bayrou, leader of the Union for French Democracy (UDF). Sarkozy himself, in response to Chirac’s latest attack, responded quite decently, declaring that he did not consider himself his heir. Finally, on March 21, Chirac announced that the internal party discipline of the UMP obliged him to support Sarkozy, but by this time no one could say whether this was good or bad. As one political observer said, Chirac should keep quiet in the future - at least he won't harm anyone. Moreover, the outgoing president has already published two volumes of his speeches - anyone who wants to can read them.

Sarkozy and national identity

Nicolas Sarkozy, therefore, was perfectly prepared for the presidential campaign. One can, of course, argue about the assessment of the results of his five-year stay in power as a minister. But one thing must be recognized - this is a rather rare type of “effective” politician, who is not limited to promises alone and consistently achieves his goals. An obvious contrast against the background of Chirac's 12-year presidency. “They may or may not love me, but no one will deny that I act and bring tangible changes,” said Nicolas Sarkozy himself. It is quite natural that the program that Sarkozy proposes directly follows from his experience gained during his years of work in the Chirac government. Meanwhile, as many political observers note, the current election campaign is concentrated not so much around specific points of the candidates’ programs, but rather around their personality and some general concept that allows them to reach even the most inattentive voter and arouse their interest in details. Each candidate, to the best of his ability, offers one or another general idea.

Meeting with voters in Nantes. Photo from sarkozy.fr

Ségolène Royal, for example, proposed abolishing the Fifth Republic and starting life anew by founding the Sixth. Her proposal first caused amazement, then bewilderment, and then indifference, since changing the constitution is a troublesome matter. As a result, Royal abandoned the idea, since the population, they say, was not yet mature. Francois Bayrou advocates a third way, somewhere between the right and the left, which for a centrist is quite understandable and, in principle, not so original. The idea put forward by Sarkozy, on the contrary, gave rise to an extensive and intense discussion in society, since, as it turned out, it touched on the hidden springs of the entire presidential campaign. Sarkozy proposed creating a “Ministry for National Identity and Immigration.” “I want,” he said, “to be able to talk freely about immigration without being accused of racism every time. I want to be able to talk about national identity without being accused of nationalism.” "Don't we have the right to talk about national identity? If we can't explain to immigrants what France is, what values are indisputable for us, how do we want them to integrate into our society? What do they need to integrate into?" - he said, speaking on the France2 TV channel. The statement, as expected, generated a storm of indignation, with even Sarkozy's closest supporters saying he had made the wrong move. Socialists interpreted this as a nod to Le Pen's voters. Ségolène Royal called it disgusting. Bayrou said that Sarkozy is trying to set one against another. A parallel was drawn with the Vichy regime, when, following the Nazis, the French also began to require their citizens to meet criteria of racial purity. However, when the initial heat of passions subsided, Sarkozy was partially recognized as being right. In the article “Nationalism that hid the nation from us”, published on the pages of Le Monde, the famous political scientist, editor of the authoritative political-analytical magazine Le Debat, Pierre Nora, bluntly stated that an attempt to start an open discussion on issues of immigration and national identity - wonderful step. However, in his opinion, Sarkozy did it rather clumsily by tying these two things together within the framework of the proposed new ministry. The identity crisis is expressed not so much through France’s attitude towards immigrants, but rather in attempts to determine its place in the world and, above all, in relation to a united Europe, a project that the French failed by a majority vote. They want to leave something untouched, but what? In Nora's view, the old idea of the nation disintegrated with the colonial empire, with changes in borders, territory, attitudes toward military service, and the disappearance of the national currency. But the new idea has not yet been developed. After this, the idea of the nation, nationalism, and patriotism captured the minds of French intellectuals and was actively discussed, including on the air of many analytical programs. It seemed that Sarkozy pulled out some kind of plug, went first and lifted the ban on a number of topics, discussion on which was previously perceived as bad manners. Following the intellectuals, even Sarkozy’s opponents changed their attitude to the idea of national identity. In particular, Ségolène Royal hastened to quickly join the discussion, saying that every Frenchman, like in the United States, should have a national flag at home so that it can be hung on July 14th. Sarkozy ironically stated on this occasion that he was glad to show the way. He also added during his speech in Martinique that if there is no agreement on the issue of national identity, the reign of tribal laws and laws of clans and sects will come. In a word, everything suggests that in the person of Sarkozy, those French who support him will vote not only for the president. Alexey Demyanov

Lenta.ru: In the world: Left to return