Public opinion surveys have a well-known weakness: They can tell you what people think now, but they cannot foresee tectonic changes, especially if these are sudden. They can then look ridiculous. The first round of the French right's primary last Sunday was a major earthquake. Former French prime minister François Fillon scored a major victory, emerging as the clear winner with around 44 per cent of the vote. Alain Juppé, the favourite, scored 28 per cent and former president Nicolas Sarkozy 21 per cent. The other four candidates scored seven per cent together. The only one who predicted this result was Fillon. Three years ago he started explaining to his aides that the second round of the primary would see him opposed to Juppé. Sarkozy's candidacy would collapse, Fillon said. The media's explanation is simple: The voters' hatred for one candidate is stronger than their love for another one. Those who told the pollsters they were going to vote for Juppé in fact meant they were not going to vote for Sarkozy, and the contrary is also true. The debates before the primary showed that Fillon was a plausible alternative, and so the voters voted for him, especially as Juppé's performance during the debates had been weak. Sarkozy's attacks on Juppé's “ambivalent choices” and his alliance with centrist “renegade” François Bayrou, who voted for French President François Hollande in 2012, were successful – but they benefitted Fillon. Sarkozy failed to broaden his base, though a solid block of 700,000 voters, actually around 800,000, voted for him last Sunday. His ultra-rightist campaign, a remake of his winning 2007 strategy, was probably a huge mistake. None of this is wrong, but it oversimplifies the problem. First, there is a massive collective problem with the former president's personality and practices. He is deemed to be too aggressive and to have no clear convictions. This was welcome in 2007, as people considered former French president Jacques Chirac's two presidential terms to be “lost years” that needed a lot of repair work through strong leadership. I guess that nobody but the experts forgot Sarkozy's attempt to give his son a political job either. The pundits forget how much this cost him, and they forget how many people doubt his ethics. Whatever the candidates and the media might say, an election is the choice of a leader as much as it is the choice of a programme. Second, the media consistently underestimates the hostility towards the European Union in France and the anger of the Catholic part of the electorate. When the media evokes the latter, it says that the “traditionalists” are unhappy. But the Catholic anger in France has a much broader social basis – targeting fundamentalist Islam and the growing social permissiveness embodied by legislation enabling French homosexuals to adopt children and hating the ostentatious show of money. This is not to say that Fillon's support is mainly or only Catholic, as his scores were impressive everywhere. It is simply to say that Catholics were overrepresented among those who voted for him. The French middle classes are also well represented in his social base. One political commentator told a French television channel that Fillon had two constituencies a Catholic one and another one made up of the owners of small and medium-sized businesses. On Europe, there is a consensus in France across the political spectrum that the European Union project and the euro have been disasters for the French economy and for French internal security. The French economy previously relied on competitive devaluation, a weapon that has now been lost. The porosity of the country's frontiers is obvious. On the other hand, many are well aware that a “Frexit” (a French exit from the EU) would be very costly. Fillon, a former “souverainiste” committed to the defence of French sovereignty, seems to embody this position of a dislike of the EU that is tempered by an understanding of the costs of breaking with it. However, his stance on this issue needs clarification. The really problematic side of Fillon, however, is his Thatcherite economic programme. This will be rude medicine for the French. Moreover, Fillon is a proponent of “social Gaullism” associated with the late Philippe Seguin. He also claims to be a defender of family values. How all these things will go together is an open question. It remains to be seen if his economic programme explains his success, or limits it. Third, the media's narrative tends to think the main lesson of this round is the massive “no” to Sarkozy, and to a lesser extent to Juppé. I no longer live in France, and I might be wrong, but for me such a score cannot be explained by a resounding “no” to two men alone. The vote is mainly a yes to Fillon's personality, clarity and consistency. The media tends to forget that Fillon was one of the most popular prime ministers of the French Fifth Republic. Juppé is a brilliant man, and he knows it. His economic programme looks more realistic than Fillon's, and it is a nice balance between radical liberalism, moderation and gradualism. But pondering the subtle and not so subtle differences between the two programmes only tells part of the story. Symbols are important. The two leaders embody two different Frances. Both, of course, are sons of the establishment. But Juppé is closer to the centre, to political liberalism, and to the state's stewardship of the economy. He is also closer to “political correctness” and is well aware of France's “diversity” – the fact that a growing proportion of French people have a foreign descent. On foreign policy, his views are pro-American and pro-European Union, and he has been a consistent advocate of a dialogue with moderate Political Islam. Fillon represents the (Catholic) countryside. He is committed to state sovereignty, is not fond of the European Union and is a staunch supporter of Russian President Vladimir Putin. He might be the candidate who is closer to Gaullist values, except on the economy. I would say that he is closer to the large numbers of people in France who are fed up with the elite consensus, with, once again, the possible exception of his stance on economic issues. Another open question is which of the two is the best choice against the Front National's leader Marine Le Pen? My personal answer would be Fillon, as evoking sovereignty is an anti-establishment tactic that eschews unhealthy talk on identity. But many others would say Juppé, as leftist voters can more easily vote for Juppé should there be a second round of the French presidential elections opposing Juppé to Le Pen. These voters might be tempted to stay at home if Fillon is opposed to Le Pen in the elections.
