Testimony: France in the Twenty-first Century by Nicolas Sarkozy, Philip H. Gordon (Translator)

From the Publisher

"This book presents my analysis of the difficulties France faces. It outlines my proposals for putting France back on the path toward economic growth, social justice, and modernity. And it addresses many of the common domestic, international, economic, and social challenges that advanced democracies like France and the United States must confront." So writes Nicolas Sarkozy-France's outspoken and controversial minister of the interior and a leading presidential candidate-in the new preface to the American edition of his best-selling memoir.
Sarkozy decries French arrogance and complacency-it is time for the country to put its own house in order-and calls for the restoration of abandoned values: hard work, respect for authority and the family, and individual responsibility. He insists that his country's "monarchical" government is rudderless, if not moribund, and is too given to compromise and avoidance of hard decisions. In Testimony, for which he has drawn fire, Sarkozy issues a wake-up call to his people and the world, setting forth his iconoclastic views on such hot-button issues as international relations vis-à-vis the United States, the Arab world, and Africa; globalization; cultural chauvinism; immigration; the welfare state; education; and law and order.
Extraordinary for its candor regarding Sarkozy's political as well as personal life, Testimony gives us an unsparing critique of contemporary French society and its leaders even as it champions a sharp break with the past. Sarkozy's is a brave, new vision for France as it engages the world of the twenty-first century.

Publishers Weekly

Much of this newly translated political manifesto by France's Gaullist presidential front-runner won't come across clearly to Americans—especially the author's cryptic allusions to his marital difficulties, his murky feuds with other French politicians, and to unnamed "plotters and schemers in their smoke-filled rooms." But given Sarkozy's penchant for "American"-style rhetoric, much else will seem familiar: his celebration of individual initiative, hard work and risk-taking entrepreneurship; his insistence that France dynamite its allegedly sclerotic welfare state and embrace a competitive global economy; his tough-on-crime stance and his tearful elegies for children murdered by sex offenders. Sarkozy decries France's 35-hour workweek, high minimum wage and lavish dole, and fires a fusillade of small-bore, often vague proposals to improve the tax and judicial systems, education, the constitution, the civil service and immigration policy. For all his echoing of Bills Clinton and O'Reilly (with a touch of Gallic grandiosity), this leader on the French right is still left of the American consensus; he opposes the death penalty and champions affirmative action, and even his reformed welfare state would strike many Americans as socialistic. As bracing—or unsettling—as Sarkozy may sound to the French, in English he is rather tepid. (Mar.)

Copyright 2006 Reed Business Information.

Foreign Affairs

French presidential elections do not usually stir much interestin the United States. The cast of characters seems to have varied little over the years: President Jacques Chirac, former Prime Minister Lionel Jospin, the far-right figurehead Jean-Marie Le Pen. The last presidential election without Chirac as a candidate was back in 1974, when Richard Nixon was in the White House and Harold Wilson at 10 Downing Street. And for the past four decades, French foreign policy, whether toward Europe, the United States, the Middle East, or Africa has remained remarkably constant under presidents of the left or the right. Most French candidates under the Fifth Republic have been reliably anti-American, either of the independent-minded Gaullist variety or of a left-wing anticapitalist strain.

This time things are different. Neither Nicolas Sarkozy, the leading right-wing candidate for April's presidential contest, nor his main contender, the Socialist Party candidate Ségolène Royal, has ever stood for the presidency before. Both are in their early 50s, of a different generation from Chirac's and at ease with the Internet revolution. They promise to modernize France and equip it for the twenty-first century. But Royal still embraces the Socialist Party's traditional anti-Americanism, calling, for example, for a strong Europe in order to counter "the American hyperpower," as Hubert Védrine, the former Socialist foreign minister, once put it. Sarkozy, on the other hand, sounds like nobody else before him.<

• Read a Sample Chapter

Read a Sample Chapter

Testimony

France in the Twenty-first Century

---

By Nicolas Sarkozy

Pantheon

Copyright © 2007 Nicolas Sarkozy
All right reserved.
ISBN: 9780375425059

---

Chapter One: Political Beginnings

Few political families are as affected by their history as Gaullism. Because of the experience of war and the solidarity born of the Resistance, this is understandable. In fact, however, recent generations of Gaullist leaders did not live through these events, and yet nothing has really changed. Nostalgia for the past, the love of epic stories, and the presence in the party of mythical and charismatic speakers are all part of the Gaullist legacy.

I remain, sometimes despite myself, deeply affected by this history. I have my favorite memories and it’s hard to stop me from bringing them up. One such example is my first participation in a party conference of the Union of Democrats for the Republic (UDR)—the name of the Gaullist movement in the mid-1970s—which remains etched in my memory down to the smallest detail. It was in 1975, in Nice. I had arrived, like many other party organizers, on the overnight train. It was my first visit to the city that has since remained my favorite. It was hot, the sun was shining, and the young ladies of Nice looked almost perfect to my twenty-year-old eyes. My heart was beating even harder at the thought that the following day I would have the honor of getting up on the stage to give my firstspeech.

It would, admittedly, be a morning speech, and the amount of time allotted for me—less than five minutes—was not exactly likely to make my appearance the highlight of the conference. But it felt that way to me! I had had a really short night. I couldn’t sleep because the idea of giving my first speech kept spinning around in my head. I had written my text on both sides of a piece of paper, violating speechmaking rules that I knew nothing about.

Entering the room Sunday morning, I could hardly breathe. Everything was enormous. It was all much bigger than I had imagined. I particularly remember the stage and the speaker’s podium that looked like the stern of a ship, really high up. This was an era in which the choreography and decor had to be magnificent. Proximity to the people didn’t seem to be the highest priority. My heart was beating as never before, yet I wouldn’t have given up my spot for anything in the world. I was excited and terrified at the same time.

Jacques Chirac was at the time prime minister and leader of the Gaullist movement. He was chairing the conference. Ten minutes before it was my turn to speak, they came to tell me to be ready to go onstage. I was sitting there on a stool that I remember was wobbly—and I was already wondering if this was a bad sign. Then Jacques Chirac called to me: “Are you Sarkozy? You are speaking for five minutes, and you won’t be given a minute more than that, understood?” I went along willingly, without really having understood what had been said to me. My final memory is the moment when, for the first time, I found myself standing behind the podium. I was blinded by the light of the projectors and surprised by the sound of my amplified voice. Curiously, I don’t remember anything about what happened later on this day that would determine the orientation of my life. It’s as if all that mattered was the starting point.

After this first meeting with Jacques Chirac, I was with him for all the big battles over the following fifteen years. These included the creation of the Rally for the Republic (RPR) in 1976; his conquest of the Paris mayor’s office in 1977; the legislative elections of 1978; his first failed presidential run in 1981 (when I was head of the National Youth Committee in favor of his candidacy); and his second failed attempt in 1988 (when I organized the main campaign meetings). Since I was too young and not yet in Parliament, I didn’t play much of a role when the right was in power from 1986 to 1988, with Chirac as prime minister.

My political journey was a lot harder than people have often said and even than I have admitted. A lot of political leaders have found their vocation by working in a ministerial cabinet right after graduating from the National Administration School (ENA). It is much rarer to start as a grassroots party organizer and climb your way up, but that’s the route I took. I was secretary for my constituency, then regional treasurer, then a leader of my region—I served at practically every basic level possible. It wasn’t until ten years after I first started in politics that I became mayor of Neuilly, after the sudden death of my predecessor, Achille Peretti.

During all these years, Jacques Chirac and Charles Pasqua—a leading figure in the RPR—often asked me to work directly for our political movement, but I always energetically refused. This was because for as long as I can remember I saw working for a party to be like being in an intellectual prison, cut off from all freedom of choice. In this case, material dependence inevitably leads to political dependence. And I wanted to preserve my political freedom at all costs.

Thus I was never a paid employee either of the RPR or of Jacques Chirac. And that turned out well, because in 1983, the RPR didn’t support me when I ran for mayor of Neuilly. In my path was none other than Charles Pasqua, already a senior Gaullist politician. I am grateful to Chirac, who didn’t back me, for not having done anything to stop me from being a candidate, even though I was only twenty-eight years old. This independence also served me well a second time, in 1988, when I decided to run for Parliament against the incumbent deputy Florence d’Harcourt, to whom Chirac had already pledged the RPR’s support.

When I won, I became a member of Parliament for the first time. And it was only at this time that I began to hold political responsibility alongside Chirac. I’ll address my complex relationship with Jacques Chirac later in this book. But what I want to say here is that when I was at his side for all these political battles I was totally committed. This is the way I am. I have trouble imagining any sort of commitment other than total. Given Chirac’s role in shaping the history of the Gaullist movement, it’s only natural I have often been at his side.

I say “often,” but not “always,” as there have been exceptions, most notably in 1995. So much has been said about this that everyone still remembers it. Everything has been said, written, told, commented, imagined, and exaggerated to the point that the caricature has ended up being the reality, or at least the perceived reality. I want to talk about it here to give my version of events that I lived through passionately. After all, I think I have at least as much right to talk about them as a number of interested bystanders. I am under no illusion that I’ll be able to convince people of my version of events. The facts are now old and the images in people’s minds are very strong.

But I still want to give my version, once and for all. Those who, like me, supported Edouard Balladur rather than Jacques Chirac for president in 1995 have paid the price for having lost. The rules of democracy are clear. If you lose you’re wrong, and if you win you’re right. That’s just the way it is. It serves no purpose to challenge this, it’s the price of democracy.

At the beginning of the 1990s, everything was simple. Jacques Chirac needed Edouard Balladur to win the presidential election, and Balladur needed Chirac to become prime minister—or at least to get some other high position. I was working for and with both of them. As lawyers would say, there was no conflict of interest at the time.

Thus from 1988 until 1993, while organizing the annual meeting of the opposition along with another RPR politician, Alain Madelin, I was working relentlessly on what would become the platform of the opposition that would win the 1993 legislative elections. I owe this new direction in my political life to Edouard Balladur. Until then, my political repertoire consisted only of power plays, applause lines, ready-made ideas, and putting my inexhaustible energy behind Jacques Chirac.

Working with Balladur, even though I was very different from him, I discovered several things: the advantages of compromise, tolerance, respect for skepticism, a profound commitment to consensus (or at least a strong aversion to conflict), and a healthy detachment from people and events. In short, I felt able to use new forces and to rise to a new level. I was grateful to Balladur for having considered me to be up to crossing this threshold. In contrast, a weakness of Jacques Chirac is to always want to place people around him in a box from which, if they’re not careful, they’ll never reemerge.



A First Taste of Power

After winning the legislative elections of 1993, the question was whether I was going to join the government or instead take over from Alain Juppé as secretary general of the RPR. Jacques Chirac wanted me to take over the party, while Edouard Balladur wanted me to join the government. I wanted to join the government so badly that I had no trouble convincing Chirac to accept this, and I entered the government as Minister for the Budget.

Then it was time to act. For two years, I learned and evolved all the more because in government there is always some battle to be waged, some crisis to resolve, or some challenge to meet. I could thus use all my energy, with the only limit being my physical strength. Since not so many of us in government worked like this, I ended up taking on even greater responsibilities than the already significant ones Balladur initially gave me. I was all for it. The prime minister needed me. Our cooperation and agreement developed further each time we had a crisis to manage together.

Continues...

---

Excerpted from Testimony by Nicolas Sarkozy Copyright © 2007 by Nicolas Sarkozy. Excerpted by permission.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.

---