Two hours of Sarkozy!

Author: Rosa Maria Young

Last Friday I published an article about the French president’s TV interview. As I had written it before it happened, I thought I could elaborate a little about what transpired during the almost two hours (it had been planned for 90 minutes) that it lasted. As I was curious about how he will go about it, I stayed glued to the TV watching Nicolas Sarkozy explaining and unambiguously defending his planned reforms as well as some of his positions on national and international politics. Before I get on with what was disclosed I have to say that I am not a Sarkozy fan. His politics in many ways remind me of those from the US Republican party. Had I been French and able to vote in their last elections, I would had done so for Ségolène Royal. But I am digressing. What I wanted to say is that for me, an American who has been subjected to the inability of President Bush to be coherent or give the shortest speech without a teleprompt, it was a revelation. A president speaking and answering questions clearly. On the other hand, most of the French who were listening were not doing so for a French lesson. They wanted answers and explanations to the reforms Sarkozy’s government is proposing. Did he deliver what they expected?

The day after the interview, Gérard Courtois, editor in chief of “Le Monde” newspaper talking about Sarkozy said “he acted restrained, ready to listen and to recognize his errors. This new Sarkozy tried yesterday to remain calm, patient and serious.” In fact almost from the beginning of the program, Sarkozy talking about the proposed reforms said “I was ready for difficulties and disappointments,” and he added “a president is there to take a decision that nobody else wants to take,’ and went further on to talk about France saying “this country where there is always somebody that is not happy.”
But as well as recognizing his errors and assuming responsibility for them which he did several times during the program (still a new thing for Americans, a president who recognizes errors!), he was also tenacious about the course traced during his campaign for many matters: work and purchasing power, immigration and education, pensions and human rights. He said that the course traced would remain as “there was not alternative.” He explained that he was not deaf or blind and had realized that the price of gas, the cost of life, the economic and financial crisis and the rising of the euro had contributed to deflate the hopes of the French people. But, he went on to say that the reforms would take place. That was his message.

Now it is a question of waiting and seeing if the French were persuaded. It has been said that his restraint could appear as cleverness and his tenacity as stubbornness. Still, at least the French have a president who tries to explain things.