Now for round two

The first round of the French presidential election threw up a few surprises. But now it's a straight fight—and Sarkozy has the upper hand
May 25, 2007

In France, the usual justification for having a first round in the presidential election, full of fringe candidates, is that it gives the electorate a chance to let off steam. By voting for outsiders, it is thought they purge their frustration with the establishment, giving them the serenity they need to vote like responsible citizens a fortnight later. If that is true, then this Sunday was a democratic washout: fully three quarters of the votes were "useful"—that is, for a candidate who had a good chance of becoming president—a figure which excludes the 10 per cent who voted for Le Pen. This meant a hammering for the eight far left and right candidates, as well as the probable death of the Communist and the Green parties as electorally viable entities. Thus next time there may be less choice—which for some means less democracy.

The most surprising figure to emerge from Sunday is that more women voted for Nicolas Sarkozy (32 per cent) than for Ségolène Royal (27 per cent). Surprising because Royal is one of the first women candidates for high office in France to be relaxed in her femininity, rather than presenting herself as a man in drag. This is most obvious in her non-verbal behaviour: she'll give a little girl's run-and-skip for joy, she'll walk along with her arm around someone's waist, she'll have a fit of giggles on camera. Such behaviour is, in fact, the key to her success; she gained most of her popularity in France before ever having expressed a political idea—which earned her the reputation among male socialists of not having any. Contrast with, say, Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir, who consciously tried to beat men at their own game.

Royal did better than Sarkozy among the 18-34 age group and among the middle classes, always the bedrock of French socialism. Les ouvriers (workers) gave her short shrift (one vote in five). Sarkozy, on the other hand, took the older vote—particularly the over-70s (46 per cent), an important constituency in an ageing society like France. He also took the traditional right—farmers, managing directors, artisans—and did well among salaried employees. Unlike Royal's, his vote was evenly spread.

Clearly both candidates need as many as possible of François Bayrou's 7m voters. This will be harder for Royal: Bayrou's party, the UDF, has been closer to Sarkozy's UMP than to the Socialists—indeed some UDF députés were elected only thanks to deals with the UMP. Yet unless Royal succeeds here, she has no chance against Sarkozy's substantial 5.31 point lead. She will pick up the assorted extreme left, but these represent less than 10 per cent, taking her to perhaps 36 per cent—way off a majority.

Fully aware of this, Royal declared in her first speech since the election that, "For France to win, we need to invite another dimension to our gathering." This means Bayrou. Then, in one of those moments of naivety which is her hallmark, she said she had left a message to that effect on his answering machine. This is someone applying for the most powerful job in one of the world's most influential countries. We can only hope she didn't get the wrong number.

To win over Bayrou's voters, Royal will have to prove two things: that her socialism is not rooted in outdated dogma—particularly over employment in small businesses, where Bayrou is strong—and that she has the capacity to be a head of state. For the first she will have to go into a fairly violent reverse, but it's the second which may be more difficult, since her performance on foreign policy so far has been less than inspiring. In particular, both she and Sarkozy will have to define carefully their vision of Europe, since both were caught out by the vote on the EU constitution. How to persuade the "no" voters that you understand their fears without making yourself a Chirac-like weathervane? How to find a line that satisfies the no's without making tubthumping declarations of the "Europe is going to have to accept…" sort? Already Royal has apparently angered Angela Merkel by insisting on a new constitution.

As for Sarkozy, he knows that his initial numerical advantage will not suffice and that he too needs Bayrou's voters: on Monday he called for a "multipolar majority." Despite his superior campaign machine, Sarkozy's nervous, ambitious manner means he suffers from a bad image, particularly in the 18-34 group. His aggressiveness frightens people. Slow-motion videos show him repeatedly pulling a lop-sided, lip-curling grimace which expresses utter disdain for the people he is addressing. People look at his five years as a minister and wonder what he has achieved. 18 months after the violence in the tower-block estates, the situation is not much improved. Money has been spent, but people cannot see any difference. During the three-month campaign, Sarkozy dared set foot in an estate only a couple of times—and never near where the violence flared in November 2005. Yet to be truly representative of France, he has to address that wound and convince voters, in the next few days, that his remedy will work.

Perhaps the most difficult decisions remain for Bayrou—who simultaneously lost the election and won prize place. Should he respect what he told us during the first campaign—that neither Sarkozy nor Royal can cure France's ills? If so, he risks being heartily clobbered by the eventual victor, first in the parliamentary elections in June. But can he do otherwise and keep his credibility?

There are many crucial decisions to be taken. If a week is a long time in politics, 11 days must be eternity. But at least the first-round vote brings down the curtain on the first act and gives both the cast and punters chance to get new wind for the second: shorter, but not lacking in drama, intrigue and, by the end, a stage littered with dead bodies.