Berkley Center

With under 50 days until the first round of the presidential elections (the primary paper here, Le Monde, has a countdown going), French political life is reaching its high point of activity. Each candidate is doing his (or her) best to gain the most favorable position, paying careful attention to the latest polls, which come out practically every week. In that respect, following politics in France is much like following a sports team—new rankings every week, analysis of the smallest phrases—what makes the poll numbers go up or down, what shifts public opinion.

Notably lacking (relative to elections on the other side of the Atlantic) from this vibrant political life is any prominent mention of religion. Aside from the candidates currently in third and fourth position (François Bayrou and Jean-Marie Le Pen) who are clearly Catholic and occasionally reference this fact in interviews or debates, religion plays a very small role in gaining votes. On the rare occasion they invoke their religious views, it is typically in defense of traditional Catholic values, which are generally pretty close to traditional French values in general, France being a traditionally Catholic country. In contrast to an American voter, who might use a candidate’s religious profile as a deciding factor in his choice, the French voter would be much more likely to just choose at random. Of course, they are both susceptible to voting for the more attractive candidate, or another equally irrelevant and arbitrary characteristic. But for the most part, religion is absent, even in finding the moral high ground. To illustrate the American counter-example, take the issue of gay marriage, which is a sensitive and often polarizing issue in both countries. In the United States, a politician might defend his opposition to gay marriage by referencing the Bible, or the Christian tradition in which marriage is implicitly between a man and a woman. In contrast, the front-runner Nicolas Sarkozy fielded a question on gay marriage during a recent television show. In keeping with his stated platform, he opposes marriage between two people of the same sex, but supports a civil union, with all the same rights except that of adoption. Pressed for his reasoning, Sarkozy’s response was simply that in his opinion, which he recognizes differs from some others, marriage is between a man and a woman. He asked that his opinion be respected, as he respected differing opinions, but did not invoke any higher moral authority. End of story.

In many ways, this intense respect of diverse opinions contributes to the liveliness of French political debate. In not seeking the moral high ground on a given issue, each candidate, even each voter, has the license to continue his line of reasoning without needing to be right or wrong, which unfortunately happens a great deal in American politics. It is a far more practical approach to government, in contrast with the moralistic approach that sometimes characterizes American politics. In the case where someone does call upon a values system to support his case, it is typically that of “tradition” or “history” that is employed. For example, France has no history of affirmative action (in France described as positive discrimination), because it officially views each individual as a citizen, no more, no less (to my knowledge, France does not even keep demographic information such as what percent of the population is white, black, Arab, Asian, etc.). Mr. Sarkozy, however, is a proponent of positive discrimination, which his opponents see in conflict with France tradition of republican values. The mere choice of positive discrimination reveals its negative connotations in France. Admittedly, this issue does not have religious undertones in the United States, but this example provides an illustration that French politics tend to have historical-traditional roots instead of moral-religious ones.

In conclusion, French politicians lack (at least publicly) the guiding religious compass that so many American politicians claim to have. It is probably also a reflection of the strict separation of public and private (family) life that is ingrained in French politics. While in 2004 George Bush benefited from his image as a good, church-going Christian, no candidate in this French presidential election has attempted to gain from a similar sort of posturing. It is not even clear to me whether such a strategy would gain or lose votes, since the electorate might doubt the candidate’s sincerity, and the gamble could backfire. In very closely examining religious issues in this election, some subtle ironies reveal themselves. One, that Mr. Bayrou, a centrist proposing an inclusive government of right and left, abstained from one of the few votes where right and left agreed, that of the banning of veils in schools (really reinforcing an existing law that prohibits the display of religious symbols in schools). The other, that Mr. Sarkozy (who I assume is Catholic) has proposed (but not publicized) that the state be allowed to fund religious organizations, such as charities. These two positions, possibly guided by the candidates' own religious beliefs, seem to contradict their reputations in the general political arena. On the other hand, these nuances will not play a major role in this election.