N’importe nawak

« Enorme buzz autour du livre de Yasmina Reza » — that’s one of the headlines generated by “le livre évènement de la rentrée littéraire,” Yasmina Reza’s « L’Aube le soir ou la nuit ». What is the subject of this book that has everyone talking, generating that “énorme buzz”? Who else — Nicolas Sarkozy.

I can’t imagine a book of this sort being published in the US. It wouldn’t be too surprising if a well-known writer like Yasmina Reza decided to follow a candidate around for several months and the candidate granted her almost unrestricted access. What’s surprising is Reza’s approach – she’s not interested in writing a campaign diary or creating the portrait of a politician in action; rather — well, I’ll let her tell it:

“Je ne cherche pas à écrire sur le pouvoir. Je ne cherche pas à écrire sur le pouvoir ou sur la politique, ou alors sur la politique en tant que mode d’existence. Ce qui m’intéresse, c’est de contempler un homme qui veut concurrencer la fuite du temps.” (Le monde, 22.08.07)

Far be it from Reza to write some sordid political book. She could care less about power or politics! What she wants is the opportunity — uniquely offered by Nicolas Sarkozy, apparently — “to contemplate a man who wants to outstrip the flight of time.”

An article in Le monde strongly implies an amorous attraction between the writer and her candidate: “Vous avez le choix entre être amoureuse et être ambitieuse,” Alain Minc is quoted as telling her, plainly enough. Apparently sensing that nothing spices up a love story like a triangle, Reza also alludes to her involvement with a second politician discreetly referred to only as “G.”

Am I the only one to find all of this to be…in extraordinarily bad taste? I wondered that after reading the breathless article in Le monde. A reassuring review in Libération puts its finger on the problem: “le livre est la mise en scène explicite d’une rencontre au sommet : toi Nicolas, moi Yasmina, et la jungle à nos pieds.” Indeed. And thanks to her exceptional literary powers, Yasmina will pierce through the superficialities of mere journalism to reach the essence of  “politics as a way of existence.” And how better to do that than to plumb the depths of a powerful politician’s soul?

A good article in the Nouvel Obs by Jacques Julliard (“Socialistes, croyez-vous encore à vos mythes?” 2 août, 2007) about why the French Parti socialiste is in such a mess, and more specifically why they lost this year’s presidential election, which by the natural law of alternance, plus Chirac’s mediocre record and a clear, strong feeling that the country needed a change should have been theirs. The gist of Julliard’s thesis is that the party has failed to deal with the definitive end of communism signalled by the break up of the Soviet Union and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Even though the Socialists had long ago distanced themselves from the Stalinist nightmare that the Soviet Union had become, they are still affected by the death of the dream of communism because that dream – the dream of a utopian socialist state — was their dream as well: it was the ideal, the city on the hill, toward which socialist policies were designed to bring society closer. Socialist policy was also founded on the same Marxist (or Marxisant – Marxist inflected) analysis of society: capitalism and the market economy are the source of alienation, class war, and other evils and should therefore be reduced and one day eliminated through the power of the state operating in the interests of the people. Businesses should therefore be nationalized and strictly controlled; the state must become strong enough to defeat the capitalist enemy before it can shrink.

Julliard points out that Socialist politicians haven’t subscribed to Socialist orthodoxy of this sort for a long time, but that they still, at least implicitly, give lip service to it. The result is an intellectual hypocrisy that fools no one. Or at the very least, since the old Socialist vision is no longer credible, there is an emptiness and simply a dullness to Socialist discourse.

In other words, as everyone has said, the Parti socialiste needs an intellectual, theoretical renewal. Actually, as Jean-Marie Colombani, former editor of Le Monde, and other commentators (such as Alain Duhamel) have pointed out, the party needs renewal in three areas: policy, leadership, and political allies. Undoubtedly true, but the theoretical level is the most fundamental.) If a socialist society, clearly demarcated from a capitalist one is not the goal, what is? Other European socialist parties have been able to move beyond this question, or at least resolve it in an electorally satisfactory way; the French are still stuck. They probably have a good ten years to figure out the answer because Sarkozy doesn’t look to be leaving office anytime soon: so far he has all the earmarks of a successful two-term president along the lines of Bill Clinton and (the pre-Iraq War) Tony Blair.

Here are some longish quotes from Julliard, so you can have a more precise idea of what he has to say (note that his article was originally an address to a meeting called by Ségolène Royale to consider the lessons of the presidential defeat, so it’s addressed to a Socialist audience and also has some noticeable ségoliste (ségolien?) inflections):

Il y longtemps que le PS a cessé de penser et de croire ce qu’il raconte. Depuis 1989 au moins, date de la chute du Mur, la gauche toute entière est malade, parce qu’elle n’a pas su analyser ni tirer les conséquences de ce qui s’est passé. On dira que c’est injuste : les sociaux-démocrates n’ont-ils pas été toujours et partout la cible préférée des staliniens victorieux ? Alors, pourquoi devraient-ils êtres emportés dans le naufrage de leur pires ennemis ? Parce que, qu’on le veuille or non, le socialisme (comme la Révolution, au dire de Clemenceau) est un bloc ! Que le communisme a été pendant près d’un siècle l’horizon d’attente du mouvement ouvrier tout entier ; Jaurès et Blum, les deux parangons du réformisme, n’ont cessé de proclamer que seules les méthodes séparaient les réalistes des maximalistes.

Another little passage :

C’est pourquoi je pose la question : les socialistes croient-ils encore à leurs mythes tels que la lutte des classes – encore fort à la mode du temps de Mitterrand –, le prolétariat, la nationalisation des moyens de production et j’en passe ? Si l’on n’y croit plus, alors qu’on le dise, et surtout que l’on en tire les conséquences. Trop longtemps on a cru pouvoir gagner la partie au moyen d’un logiciel que l’on savait faux. Pour un parti qui se veut le parti de l’intelligence, quel mépris de l’intelligence ! Quelle dénégation du réel ! Quel mépris de l’électeur ! Et l’on voudrait que celui-ci ne s’en aperçut pas ?

« Les lendemains qui chantent » was a postwar slogan of the Parti communiste – literally “tomorrows that sing.” They’re not singing anymore, and this is a problem!