“At midnight on the 16th May President Chirac’s term in office will come to an end and he will make way for his successor. Will it be Nicolas Sarkozy, Ségolène Royal or François Bayrou?” Opening her editorial with this question, posed towards the readers of La Revue du Liban, Evelyne Massoud begins her reflections on the ‘heroic achievements’ of the French president in a celebratory tone. “If no-one can deny that Chirac has been strongly pro-European, it can also be said that he has been a great friend of the Lebanon. He first visited in 1993 as Mayor of Paris, and has returned no fewer than five times, the most recent being in 2005, the day after the death of his dear friend Rafiq Hariri. His last act of faith and love for the Lebanon was the ‘Paris III conference’ for the rebuilding of the Nation”. Not everyone in the Arab world sees Chirac as an example to be followed, however. Even if he had wanted to run for a third term of office, “after twelve years of ‘sickly sweet’ leadership and a popularity which has plunged to a historic all-time low, his chances of being re-elected would be slimmer than the models who strut with the spring collection of Christian Dior”, comments Claude Salhani, with “typically French” sarcasm, in the Egyptian Middle East Times.

The important thing for the Arab world now, however, is to find out who will be the new head of the Élysée, and how this will affect the course of French policies. On the pages of the Arab dailies, speculation is rife. The main areas of discussion concern two issues: the newspapers of the Mashreq (the Arab east – ed.) are almost solely interested in the impact of the imminent change in leadership on foreign policy; the press this side of the Nile, however, and especially that of the francophone Maghreb region, is focused rather on the differences in domestic policies (immigration, integration, the acquisition of citizenship) between the different manifestoes of the three favourites – Royal, Sarkozy and Bayrou.

International policies

Arab journalists are competing to trace any details in the biographies of the three candidates which might give a clue as to their background and tendencies in foreign policy. Thus Randa Takieddin, in Al-Hayat, highlights the Jewish roots of Nicolas Sarkozy as an explanation for his sensitivity to issues concerning the Jewish people and his concern for the security of Israel – concerns which imply a clear stance in the international sphere. “If Sarkozy becomes president”, he writes, “his foreign policy will be based on an alliance with the United States and on closer relations with Israel, which he has more than once described as ‘a small state surrounded by hostile governments.’” This closeness to Israel is what links Sarkozy to the centrist candidate Bayrou, who “has gained himself the reputation of being the friend of the Jewish state and a supporter of its policies”. Nevertheless, unlike Sarkozy, Bayrou “is not indissolubly bound to an alliance with the US, and in fact supported the stance of Chirac in opposition to the invasion of Iraq.”

As far as the socialist candidate is concerned, Ségolène Royal has always attempted to avoid taking a clear stance on the Israel-Palestine question. In a speech on the 11th February, she summarised the problem in three lines: “For peace in the Middle East we must take account of two issues which are both intrinsic, one to the other, and equally urgent – that of justice and that of security. We must give justice to the Palestinians. But we must also guarantee the security of Israel and the life of all its citizens”. “Reducing such a complex conflict to two simple words, ‘justice’ and ‘security’, doesn’t suggest a great desire and commitment to finding a solution”, notes Ridha Kefi in the Tunisian newspaper Le Temps. “In avoiding explicitly stating the need to create a Palestinian state, Royal is no doubt attempting not to alienate the Jewish pro-Israel lobby in France, of whose power she is very aware, especially in the sphere of communication.”

With regards to the Iraq question, that other thorny problem of the strategic Middle Eastern region, in an interview with Daphne Barak of Al-sharq al-Awsat, Ségolène Royal pointed out that she was opposed to the idea of French intervention in Iraq and stated herself as being in favour of the withdrawal of the American troops from the region. Making the most of the question, however, she shifted the discussion to one of her favourite topics – co-operative policies towards development: “Now it is Iraq’s turn to begin a process which will allow the American troops to withdraw. I think that, once again, we are dealing with the issue of economic and social development. We need to see a greater flow of international aid in order to stimulate development and bring back peace and stability to the region.”

In the view of Le temps, “the new policy of co-development proposed by the socialist candidate”, which proposes a 5% increase in public aid towards development, to be directed via the channels of local NGOs so as to increase their role and presence within society, “is one of the few points in which the manifestoes of Madame Royal and Monsieur Sarkozy differ noticeably: the socialist seems more determined to promote democracy and stable government in the southern Mediterranean.” Aside from the issue of cooperation, however, “if Royal wins the election, French foreign policy will not undergo any specific changes from its present course”, comments the editorial of Al Hayat. “If, on the other hand, Sarkozy becomes president, foreign policy will align itself with that of the United States, which will mean, amongst other things, a more hard-line stance with respect to Hamas and Hezbollah.”

With regard to Bayrou’s foreign policy, Claude Salhani, in The Middle East Times, describes it as ‘a mystery’. “In any case,” a resigned Randa Takieddin comments in Al-Hayat, “the end of Chirac’s mandate represents a huge loss for the Middle East, the Lebanon, Iraq, and the other hotspots of the region, since his successor will lack the necessary experience to manage the issues in this part of the world.” Finally, with regard to the non-Arabic Islamic world, and most markedly with respect to Turkey and Iran, the presidential candidates seem to differ more in tone than in content. Whilst Sarkozy openly declares his opposition to Turkey’s membership of the European Union (a stance which Patrick Seale in Al-Hayat considers to be “an error of strategic proportions”), Ségolène Royal, in an interview published by Al-sharq al-Awsat, diplomatically states her appreciation of the fact that “countries like Turkey wish to embrace European values”, whilst adding that “the E.U., at 27 member states, needs to undergo a settling period; only if the system functions properly can Europe allow itself to look beyond its borders.”

Her position on Iran is much clearer. “I have been Minster for the Environment, I have inspected nuclear power plants, and I know through personal experience that when technology for the enrichment of uranium is controlled for domestic purposes, it can also be used for military ends. I am therefore absolutely opposed to Iran having access to nuclear technology. Even for domestic purposes!”

Domestic policies

A recent survey carried out by the IFOP (Institut Français d’Opinion Publique) shows that the majority of French citizens of North African origin – the so-called ‘beurs’ – who are largely Muslim, feel themselves closer to the Socialist Party and its candidate Ségolène Royal (57% of voters in the first round, and 85% in the second) than to the right wing UMP and Sarkozy. Nevertheless, according to the independent Tunisian daily Le Temps, “the stances of Royal on Islam and on Muslims are no different from those of her main rival. Even if the Socialist Party candidate seems to wish to display a certain divergence from Sarkozy on these issues, her statements do not stray significantly from the secular republican line. Insisting upon the secularity of the State, the Socialist Party is trying to improve its image in the eyes of a secularist lobby which is ever more intransigent with respect to Islam.”

In the speeches of both Royal and Sarkozy, Islam seems often to be considered as ‘an enemy of the state’. And if it is true that both candidates have chosen Muslim women of North African origin as their personal spokespeople for the electoral campaign, and that both are surrounded by numerous Muslim colleagues and consultants, it is also true, as the Palestinian newspaper Al-Quds Al-‘Arabi points out, that these are often children of second or third generation immigrants, who belong to the a professional class, and who have only very faint links with their country and culture of origin. “Is this, then, how the two candidates hope to seduce the Muslim electorate?”, the paper asks.

In reality the socialist candidate has gained the approval of voters of North African origin above all for those parts of her political programme which concern unemployment and, to a lesser extent, education and social policies. The unease and unrest of the suburbs is, in fact, one of the areas in which Royal is at her most convincing. According to Yacine Farah, writing in the Algerian El-Watan, the main priority for Madame Royal is to “reinvigorate the associative fabric, reduce unemployment and combat effectively the discrimination and isolation of which the young people living in the suburbs are victim.” With regards to Bayrou, who gains second place in the preferences of the ‘beur’ voters, it is precisely this fight against discrimination which appears to be the most attractive point of his manifesto, whilst Sarkozy’s proposed ‘Marshall Plan for the suburbs’ does not seem to convince for the French of Maghreb origin. It is the question of immigration above all, however, which justifies the marked break between Royal and the other candidates.

Sarkozy has adopted a hard line towards immigrants (who in 2004 already constituted 8.1% of the French population), and especially towards Arab and Islamist movements. The Middle Eastern Times adds that “in the hope of taking votes from Le Pen, Sarkozy has also announced his Orwellian project of creating a Ministry of Immigration and National Identity”. The project was passionately criticised by the socialist candidate who, according to Nadjia Bouzeghrane in El Watan, is said to have declared the association between national identity and immigrant workers as ‘ignoble’, stating that “[they] come to contribute to our economic growth and have never threatened French identity. On the contrary, legal immigrants often come to do jobs that the French no longer want to do.” Yet according to Ridha Kefi of Le Temps, even on this point “Mme Royal does not really break with Sarkozy’s policy since, in her view too, the flow of migrants must be controlled and reduced.” Furthermore, the socialist “continues to defend a totally utilitarian vision of immigrant manpower which is exclusively based upon the needs of the French ruling class.”

Translation by Liz Longden