Has the race for the French presidency already begun, asks Mohamed Sid-Ahmed The French body politic, traditionally divided between right and left, is now in the throes of a new nation-wide conflict between supporters and opponents of the European constitution. In other words, between those who voted "yes" in the 29 May referendum and those who voted "no". There is no common denominator between the two conflicts. Not all those on the right of the political spectrum voted "yes" in the referendum, nor did all the left vote "no", facing political analysts trying to make sense of the results with a difficult task. However, it is possible to discern four distinct trends among voters: first, those who voted "yes" from a right-wing perspective, a position championed by President Jacques Chirac. Second, those who voted "no" from a left-wing perspective, a position championed by former socialist prime minister Laurent Fabius, who led the anti- constitution campaign waged by dissidents within the Socialist Party and who was finally dismissed from the party. Third, those who voted "yes" from a left-wing perspective, in line with the official position of the Socialist Party under the leadership of its secretary- general François Hollande. Finally, those who voted "no" from a right-wing perspective, the position of much of the middle- class intelligentsia impressed by the charismatic secretary-general of the new Gaullist Party, Nicolas Sarkozy, currently the most popular politician in France. Its would be overly simplistic and, indeed, wrong, to read the "no" vote as a rejection of the European Union. The referendum was not about the EU but about the proposed European constitution. Those who voted "no" are not opting out of the Union but rejecting a draft treaty setting own the fundamental principles according to which they will be governed for many years to come. In this logic, a "no" vote is not necessarily negative, nor, by the same token, is a "yes" vote necessarily positive and constructive. A "no" vote here should be interpreted as a call to re- negotiate the constitution on more solid grounds with a view to moving forward towards consolidating the Union. In the aftermath of the referendum. President Chirac made it clear that he has no intention of resigning. From the purely legal point of view, the fact that he was elected to power with an overwhelming majority means that there is no legal obligation on him to resign. But it could be argued that the vote of no-confidence he received from the French people on 29 May imposes a moral obligation on him to step down. His victory in the 1997 elections can be attributed in no small measure to the unexpected emergence of the fascist Jean-Marie le Pen as a likely contender for the country's top political post, a fact that drove many who would not normally have elected Chirac to vote him into office just to ensure Le Pen's defeat. As the panic over Le Pen receded, people returned to the political line they normally follow and expressed their lack of support for the president by voting "no" in the referendum. While Socialist Party leader Hollande has no problem with Chirac's decision to stay on, the same cannot be said for Sarkozy, whose popularity remains undiminished in the wake of the referendum, even as Chirac's credibility is severely damaged. Although Sarkozy has chosen not to challenge Chirac's decision not to resign, many of his statements on other less important issues contradict France's head of state. His reputation as a maverick who has on several occasions digressed from the party line casts doubt on his loyalty to the president. It also confirms the wide spread belief that he is planning to run for Chirac's post in the 2007 elections. In an attempt to shore up his credibility, Chirac tried to distance himself from the referendum debacle by pinning the blame on his prime minister, Jean-Pierre Raffarin. As soon as the results were announced, he summoned Raffarin and dismissed him on the spot. He then had to choose a replacement. In terms of popularity and stature, Sarkozy was the obvious choice. But he is a man with his own agenda and not part of Chirac's inner core of close associates. Another possibility was Defense Minister Michelle Aliote- Mary, but she was regarded as too "soft" for the job. The choice finally fell on Dominique de Villepin, who served first as foreign minister then as interior minister in Chirac's cabinet and whose loyalty to the president is above reproach. With all the players on the political stage girding themselves up for the 2007 presidential elections, the race for the presidency has already begun. The two parallel conflicts France is now living through have added new and unexpected dimensions to the race, and the coming period promises to be one of intense political manoeuvres and surprising new alliances. The four-pronged game is just the first manifestation of such manoeuvres and alliances; it will not be the last. If it is true that the "no" vote in the referendum is an issue of tactics rather than strategy, in the sense that the naysayers want the constitution to be re-negotiated not rejected altogether, it follows that the French electorate will select as president the person who can plead their case most persuasively in the context of the present balance of power. Meanwhile, Le Monde published a map showing the distribution of votes in the referendum according to the educational level and income bracket of voters. According to the map, most of the "yes" votes were cast by those belonging to higher income brackets and/or members of the intelligentsia. Comparing the distribution of votes in the 29 May referendum with their distribution in the Maastricht Treaty referendum, the paper found the number of "yes" votes to have shrunk from 51 per cent in 1997 to below 50 per cent in 2004. Does the drop indicate a drop in educational levels? Does this mean that even the French, who enjoy a high standard of education compared to other countries, are beginning to suffer like other countries from a marked decline in educational standards? For there is a general drop in educational standards worldwide and an inability to keep pace with the requirements of the age. Or is it, more specifically, that a growing proportion of France's intelligentsia is saying "no" to its politique politicienne, and that this has now reached the point of threatening its very ability to survive.
