03 novembre 2006
Sego against DSK: the die isn't cast
A speech to the boos of the
crowd yesterday in front of 5500 party members.
An article in Le Monde by a respected PS member calling for supporting DSK.
Segolène is in difficulty.
The polls still give her
61% of the votes. Bloggers and comments around the web keep mentioning this
figure. But whose votes? Not party members ones, but the ones of the PS
supporters. Well, only the guys with the card will get to vote. And not even
all of them as you had to register before June 2006 to be able to vote on the
16th. So these figures are just not relevant.
We can also look at other
polls. The ones asking supporters of the right and the left if they would prefer
a duel Sego-Sarko or DSK-Sarko.
Well a majority of supporters of the right would prefer a duel Sarko-Sego... Say
you get to choose your enemy for a fight. Which one are you going to pick, the
strong one of the easier to defeat?
At the end of the day there
are two questions:
1) If DSK is elected will
some of Sego's voters refuse to support candidate DSK?
2) If Segolène is elected
will she be strong enough to fight against the attacks of Sarko's political
machine?
I'm not sure. I wonder if
the whole craze about Segolène could not just fade away in a few days.
24 octobre 2006
The accountability of elected representatives
Here again, Segolene Royale touches upon a real issue. How can citizen feel part of a democratic system if their only participation is to vote once every 5 years?
The question is even more accute in system that lean towards a bi-party system where you can easily argue that even when you actually get to have a voice - every 5 years- you don't really have a choice.
It's interesting to read the reactions on lemonde.Fr
Basically you have 2 groups:
- The first one is composed of supposingly educated people and from one of the 2 dominant parties. They argue that this proposition is "demogagic" or " populist". They use exemples of former models in history to support their criticisms and argue that popular juries are not democratic. They don't even consider that this proposal is part of a wide attempt to put forward elements of participation in our political system. As far as I am aware the question of participative democracy is indeed debated in most of the main social sciences universities in the world, not only in some obscure tyranies or dictatorship (as mentioned in some of the comments).
- The second group is formed of people who write using a simpler vocabulary and from supporters of small parties. They welcome this proposal. Sure they want their elected representatives to be held accountable on a regular basis.
If I remember well, Bayrou had already raised this question and proposed that representatives would have to report annualy on their campaign objectives.
Is it "populist" to answer a real need of the french population, which is: have a say in the democratic debate, be able to control their elected representatives, just like your normal citizen is himself controled when he receives social benefit or when he pays taxes for exemple.
I am not sure citizen jury is the way to go, but democratic participation is. French people, from the left or the right know that. Simple people feel it. They are the ones Sego is going for, and she's getting them.
21 octobre 2006
DSK stands out altough it does not show yet in the polls
This week the 3 candidates of the Socialist party debated on TV about Economic issues.
Briefly about how they did.
DSK stood out and promoted himself as a real stateman with the skills and global view necessary for the job.
Sego pulled herself out of it, keeping a strong lead in the polls.
Fabius is not credible.
I think DSK really set a cat among the pigeon. Although it does not show in the polls yet, let's remember that only the socialist party members are voting for the primary. They are the ones this debate was targeted to. What Strauss Kahn needs is to erode Sego's support. He might very well create a big surprise and prevent her from getting the 50% + 1 vote she needs to win at the first round.
Especially since the debate on the EU and foreign policy is still to come and he is expected to do better than Segolène on that issue...
To be continued... but after watching this video, I think DSK could make it.
19 octobre 2006
On Bourdieu's video 2nd comment
I just want to come back briefly on my previous comment about this video. I guess what disapointed me about it is that it felt like Bourdieu was looking for precise arguments.
At the end of the day, the only concret elements he gives to distinguish between left and right are the ones about order and security. But they are not developed and the rest sounds like pub talk.
Bourdieu is a major thinker of our time. Maybe it would be more interesting to read or re-read his publications rather than listening to this interview, given in a restaurant...
What kind of argument is that? Bourdieu on Ségolène
Beginning of october (the Fifth I gather), a vidéo was released showing Bourdieu in 2002 (in passed away since), discussing about the definition of left and right. This vidéo has produced a big fuss because Bourdieu cites Ségolène as typically, one of these people obviously from the "right" although they are in the socialist party.
I watched and listened the video and I'm not convinced by the argument. Before mentioning Ségo (in passing by the way), he explains that the main different between left and right is the relationship to authority. Then he mentions how he knew back in the 60's when people where in the Commmunist Party, but they were really from the right. he knew because of their interest and discours about "sécurity". He knew because they "always wanted to be right", "have the last word in conversations". He also mentions how these people used the Communist Party as a tool to reach power. He mentions Serge July (former chef redactor at Libération the main left newspaper) was one of them. How he had a "chef personality".
It's funny because all of these qualifications and dispositions are not the ones I would use to describe Ségolène Royale. For instance about the idea of "being righ". Well, the way she approached the writing of her program, having it basically writen by blogers, is the opposit of thinking that she would have the truth and the right priorities.
Also, which socialist candidate would avoid taking position on the security issue when the failure to do so is one of the main reason listed for the catastrophe of 2002.
Another very helpful indication of how to make a distinction between a red and a blue political animal is their "way of speaking and "way of being".
Bourdieu when he talks about Ségolène just helds his hand as if he saws her in front of him and says, you just see she is from the right. Well the one first thing that you "just see" when looking at Ségo is a beautiful woman dressed in a fashionable working-girl kind of style. Do you have to have dirty nails and being fat from not eating healthy food to be from the left? What kind of macho, ridiculous judgement is that??
I mean, the majority of our society is middle class. Altough there are millions of people excluded from this class. Well, if they cannot have lefty ideas, well then the "left" can never be in power in a democracy, or only a left which would not really be left. In this case, whey discussing about it in the first place?
Ok, I'm going to stop this post here. But, not, I'm not convinced by the arguments given
PS: 3 candidates
Parti Socialist:
There are three official candidats to the primary elections due to take place on the
Ségolène Royale (Ségo)
Dominique Strauss Kahn (DSK)
Laurent Fabius. Fabius does not have a nickname. He does not really need one as his candidacy for this election is merely the act of a conceited man.
I changed my mind since I wrote that. Fabius has no chance to win and he is old fashion in this methods and proposals. That's all true. But he does fulfill a role. He is pulling the 2 other candidate to the left, kind of reminding them of an important part of the necessary votes to get... Yes, that's Fabius's role and that's a necessary one.
The trauma of 2002
The 2007 French presidential election has kicked off, 5 years after the previous one, and still many French people can still feel the bitter taste left from the 21th of April. I think it's difficult to start this blog without mentioning it first.
In 2002 I had made arrangements in advance to be able to vote, but I totally missed the whole campaign on insecurity. I was in Ireland, quite confident that Lionel Jospin would win. Not that I felt particularly excited by the man himself, although I might as well say it now, I have always voted socialist or green. But he was the socialist candidate. French people had voted the cohabitation. Jospin's government, it's still the general opinion, had been quite appreciated by a majority of French people.
When the results of the 1rst rounds were announced it was like a very very cold suddent shower. The sky fell on my head.
I'm writing this blog for me first, I want to forge my own opinion on political issues, on candidates, on the campaign, I want to observe the media and share my questions and opinions with other interested people. Why in English? I guess because I need to write more in English. But also, a presidential election is a big mess. It's hard to find your way around what candidates say, what the media are reporting, what the opponents are pretending. You have to read the original material, the programs. You need to be able to read French newspapers. I thought I would share this with non-french speakers.