welcome to the world of french politics

Who said that the French were predictable? Back in 2002, everyone was waiting for a Jospin-Chirac run-off and the surprise came from the far right with Le Pen reaching the second round to the astonishment of everyone. This year, everything had been meticulously studied, every scenario (even the most unlikely) has been given a chance. The journalist, analysts and politicians were ready for any surprise; however in the end, there was none. The only surprise was the lack of surprise with a return to the normal basic cleavages opposing the left and the right.

However, the above is not completely true. There was one surprise but, once more, it came from a place no one had foreseen: the turnout. The turnout was greater than 85%, a record under the Fifth Republic, a result that could challenge any country with compulsory voting. There is already talk of democratic upheaval, the causes for which are many. The fear of a new 21^st of April, the massive electoral registration of young people following the November 2005 �riots� and the fact that the two main candidates have left no one indifferent; the role played by each of these factors will be thoroughly analysed in the following days but one thing is sure, this was a good lesson in civics.

Our modern societies are continually diagnosed with political apathy, whose principal symptom is a lowering turnout. What does the French election mean in this context? Is this an isolated incident or more evidence for a more profound and more systematic problem? Indeed, elites have accused citizens of no longer participating in public life, but what if, in reality, the apparent apathy was only the result of a citizenry feeling left aside by its leaders?

This presidential election was at risk, the far-right Front National seemed threatening and the Socialist Party needed to prove it had survived 2002.  Further more the centre represented by the UDF�s Bayrou wanted to express its concerns towards the right wing UMP moving further to the right and Sarkozy had to prove the UMP�s divorce from traditional Gaullism (even if he claims otherwise). In other words, a lot was at stake, every party needed to mobilise its electorate more than ever. It obviously worked. Just as in May 2005, when approximately 70% of the voters expressed their opinion during the referendum on the European Constitution (a particularly high turnout for a European election); the French proved that political apathy was not a fate.

When political leaders fulfil their role, citizens do the same. A representative democracy remains a democracy only when it needs the people to survive.  Citizens choose to legitimately elect representatives and in this very political move, politicians ask benevolent citizens to represent them. The former are a link between the people and the state. They have a role to play and this role is not only about power but about representation as well. Once the representatives cut themselves from the people and create a ruling class, the whole concept of representative democracy is challenged.

Our representatives should thus never forget that they should not search for their electorate�s support only when needed. The citizens (or at least in this case French citizens) have proved once again that the so-called political apathy is nothing more than the results of leaders� carelessness and that when given a space to express their thoughts, they do so.

Will this be proved wrong in two weeks in the second round or during the next legislative election? We shall see.

By Ana�s Camus, EUD researcher 
For more information, please contact: anais@eudemocrats.org