There is an irrepressible desire for political change in France. Presidential contenders Ségolène Royal and Nicolas Sarkozy personify a new generation. They strive to appear outside the system and to address issues that were previously taboo. Socialist Royal decides to consult public opinion before forging policies; right-winger Sarkozy has provoked strong reactions for years. But will their populist campaigns herald a genuine renaissance in French democracy? It is still too early to tell.

Globalisation remains a major issue for public opinion in France, so there is a real danger that the presidential campaign will be insular. Europe should be a litmus test for the campaign, yet the political leaders avoid drawing lessons from French voters’ rejection of the EU constitutional treaty. So what hope is there that they will offer any better policies tomorrow?

A long-awaited debate between Royal and Sarkozy ought to clarify which reforms France needs most urgently, but the outcome may also be blurred by a clash of rival symbolisms and ideologies. Let’s hope not, although in the meantime the candidates’ policy platforms provide only a partial guide to the future.

The Left in France is deeply divided on Europe, turning to old objectives such as an EU social treaty. But its talk about economic “government” in the eurozone lacks substance. Sarkozy favours a “mini Treaty” (see Autumn 2006 issue of Europe’s World) that would cherry pick institutional reforms from the defunct constitution, without bothering about another referendum. While there is debate in France about popular policies on energy, the environment and immigration, this talk remains very elusive. The political elites have in fact no project for revitalising the European Union. Long standing demands that the EU must protect the social state still predominate.

At home, however, the established social order is being debated, with people weary of discredited policies that prioritise social security spending and have reduced working hours. Disquiet among the middle classes is pronounced, with incomes slipping and the social ladder being pulled up before they have climbed on. They want to earn more money, and are prepared to work for it.

Cleverly, Royal has recognised France’s “desire for a future,” while Sarkozy has orientated his Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) to campaign for higher wages for harder workers, with overtime to be paid at a higher rate and exonerated from payroll taxes.

Unlike the Germans, however, the French are failing to confront harsh economic realities. Even some renowned economists deny that inadequate competitiveness and substantial public debt present serious problems for the national economy, despite recent detailed explanations from the Commission of independent experts headed by top banker Michel Pébereau. Despite an urgent need for economic reform, the French state no longer knows how to prepare for the future and her citizens remain unconvinced of the benefits of commerce. There is no French consensus yet on a social market economy.

While Royal must avoid rubbing the Left the wrong way if she is to win the May presidential poll, she already enjoys strong support outside Paris in the regions. Former French Socialist Prime Minister Laurent Fabius even refers to “regionalised Blairism” in her case, recalling the early popularity of Britain’s Tony Blair. Yet if Royal reaches the Elysée she will then have to ignore the Socialist Party’s present platform, which is a caricature of earlier politics and welfare state-ism. If applied, such an old-Left agenda would run the French economy into a brick wall.

The UMP’s platform is more reasonable, advocating a general reform of public finances and an eventual reduction in compulsory payroll deductions. But it is also likely to provoke popular opposition. And Sarkozy’s combination of entrepreneurialism and support for the state sit oddly together; he appears both liberal and Bonapartist.

While Royal’s and Sarkozy’s communications campaigns can both be called populist, that doesn’t necessarily make them democratic. Calling on public opinion and listening to the people fall well short of asking France’s citizens to shoulder their civic responsibilities, or to help establish conditions for genuine participation in the democratic process. Instead, both campaigns are tailored for a country whose political system has been discredited. Since France is suffocating under state control and republican elitism, only reform of the state can pave the way for democratic progress.

The presidential campaign is beginning to show the world that France is at last open to fresh political thinking. But it will only be when French society commits itself to reform of the state, re-engagement with Europe and openness to the world that our demoralised nation will start to pull itself together again.