EATING HUMBLE PIE

On 17 November, I published a post hailing the election of Ségolène Royal as the candidate of the Socialist Party (PS) in the presidential election of April-May 2007 (“France’s New Royalty”).

In the weeks since, on several occasions, I caught myself wishing I hadn’t. Google’s Blogger has a Delete feature; I could have just clicked on it and my post would have vanished forever. I decided to eat humble pie instead. In public.

Ségolène Royal had long appeared (to me!) to be a most appealing choice for the highest office in France. France seemed very much in a rut after twelve years of Chirac and, who seemed better suited to turn the page than Ségolène Royal! A fresh face, a candidate with compelling beliefs and a personal lifestyle to match, a charismatic leader in her home region of Poitou-Charentes, a woman. Yes, I have to admit I wanted to see a woman elected President. Edith Cresson, in 1991, became the first woman to be appointed France’s Prime Minister; but to be elected to the highest post in the land is quite different from being appointed to the second-highest.

So, what went wrong? In the weeks since she won the PS primary, Royal has come, as was to be expected, under increased media and public scrutiny. She has come under my humble scrutiny as well. Since buying a ticket to Paris so I may witness her second round victory on 6 May 2007 in person, I have watched hours of footage of Royal’s speeches and pronouncements and foreign trips and press conferences, on France 2 (courtesy of TV5 in New York), on France24, and on her own website (http://www.segolene-video.org/).

My verdict is in, and Ms Royal is no Indira Gandhi or Golda Meir; she is no Margaret Thatcher; she is no Hillary Clinton either, as The International Herald Tribune recently argued in an aptly titled article (Clinton and Royal as Future Presidents? The Likeness Ends There). While Clinton is widely regarded as a politician whose strength is based on substance and clear positions, Royal's success beyond gender has been largely linked to her appearance of modernity and talking about modernizing a country on the decline. Polls show that being a woman is her single most appealing attribute.

On her first foreign trip since she was chosen as her party’s candidate, Royal visited Lebanon, Jordan, the Palestinian territories and Israel. Even allowing for the fact that she was a diplomatic débutante, she stumbled badly.

In Lebanon, she met with parliamentary deputies, among them Ali Ammar, a member of the pro-Syrian, Iranian-backed Hezbollah.

“The Nazism that has spilt our blood and usurped our independence and our sovereignty is no less evil than the Nazi occupation of France,” Mr. Ammar reportedly told Ms. Royal. He also attacked the “unlimited dementia of the American administration” and called Israel the “Zionist entity.”

Ms. Royal replied that she agreed “with a lot of things that you have said, notably your analysis of the United States.” She defended Israel, calling it not an “entity” but a sovereign state that had the right to security. She did not comment on the Nazi reference.

Questioned by journalists about her criticism of the United States, she clarified her position, saying she had only meant to be critical of American policy in Iraq, not the “the wider policies of the United States.”

Asked a day later about the Nazi remark, she said she had not heard it, saying it was a problem of interpretation. “If that comparison had been made, we would have left the room,” she said.

At a press conference in Jerusalem last Monday, Royal told reporters: “You have in front of you the only French political figure who has clearly taken a stand against Iran’s access to civil nuclear power. This will be my position if I am elected president of the republic.”

On Tuesday, Royal was promptly accused of undermining the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, which allows signatories like Iran to develop nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. It is too early to know whether Ms. Royal’s debut in the Middle East signifies “her audacity or her flightiness,” a foreign affairs expert, Daniel Vernet, wrote in Le Monde. Elaine Sciolino of The New York Times, reporting from Paris, wrote an article titled “A Candidate Abroad, or an Innocent Abroad?”

If last Monday was a fiasco, here’s what transpired on Sunday, as reported by Daniel Ben-Simon of the Israeli daily Haaretz in an article titled “A snub from Segolene Royal:”

It was a very embarrassing moment. The scene: the lobby of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem. The players: Segolene Royal's spokesman Julian Dray and a representative of CRIF, the umbrella organisation of the Jewish community in France. "I have nothing to talk to you about!" said Dray heatedly to the astonished Jewish representative. "You have sold your soul to the other side; you have nothing to look for with us. Go back to your friend Nicolas Sarkozy; he's your landlord."

The CRIF representative tried with all his might to convince Dray that his organization is taking an absolutely objective position with regard to the presidential race in France. But Dray stuck to his guns. "You are going to pay dearly for your one-sided mustering," he went on to shout. "Segolene will be president, and you will have to pray for her to receive you for a discussion."

But at the end of the day, I have to admit it was personal impressions that tipped the scale. And when I say ‘personal,’ don’t think I have ever been anywhere near Ms Royal. Yet, personal these impressions were.

The first impression was formed by watching footage of Royal’s Middle East trip on France 2 and TV5. My alluring, photogenic, and charismatic candidate is filmed in Israel speaking on her cell phone at the end of a press conference. Who walks past but Françoise de Panafieu, a deputy of the ruling party, UMP. She too is on a business (fact finding?) trip to Israel. I can see her wave at my captivating hero Ségolène; obviously they know each other! My hero, however, frowns. “You are saying all these un-nice things about me and now you expect me to say hello to you? I will not. ”

Then and there ended my love affair with Ségolène Royal. In refusing to shake the hand of a deputy (a Congresswoman to you, my American readers), Royal proved to be petty and vindictive.

Cut to Royal’s exclusive interview on France 2 on Friday 8 December; she was the guest on the evening news. Anchorwoman Béatrice Schoenberg asked Royal what she thought of the interest rate increase just approved by the European Central Bank (ECB). Royal said rates are too high; she severely criticised the ECB and its president. She further advocated a review of the ECB statutes and treaties.

A review of ECB’s statutes and treaties? Was I witnessing a case of lack of gravitas, a lack of experience, or just a loose cannon in action?

The French constitution of 1958 grants broad powers in the realm of foreign policy to the President of the Republic. And, whatever criticism one may level at Jacques Chirac’s leadership, there is no denying that he has served France’s interests abroad masterfully. Can France afford a President who is gaffe-prone?

As much as I may want a woman to be elected President, I am very happy indeed to defer my wishes and hopes.