WITH THE REFERENDUM DATE in France of May 29 fast approaching, Jacques Chirac, one of the most ardent supporters of the proposed European Union constitution, is finding Europe’s grand project on the ropes. Eleven straight polls have found that the French would reject the proposed constitution if the referendum were held today. And despite a media blitz campaign–including television appearances and free booklets–which attempts to explain the now 800-plus page document, it is not at all clear to citizens why France (and the rest of Europe) will be better off with the constitution. At the same time a combination of skepticism, apathy, and political rivalry among France’s political elites is threatening to derail the project, while the constitution’s defenders airily dismiss any criticism as simple “Europhobia.”
An unlikely alliance of opponents of economic liberalization on the left and conservative French nationalists and populists is the main motor behind the drive to oppose the referendum campaign, which is widely perceived as a project of the political elite divorced from the interests of what the constitution is supposed to promote–the citizens of France. And since the vast majority of French citizens hardly have a clue about what the constitution actually says, it is increasingly becoming the scapegoat for everything from the question of Turkey’s bid to join the European Union to problems of rising unemployment.
A rejection of the constitution is also being seen as a fine opportunity to punish the government, which has been plagued by corruption and scandal in recent months. It could be time to punish Chirac’s administration after Hervé Gaymard, the finance minister nicknamed “baby Chirac,” resigned when news surfaced that the state was financing his €14,000-a-month Paris apartment, all while unemployment rates have bobbed above 10 percent in recent months.
Many Frenchmen wonder what the point is of supporting the constitution, which would replace the laundry list of treaties which has regulated relations between European states for the past half century. One possible explanation is Chirac’s argument for the necessity of political enlargement and consolidation in Europe. While he has distanced himself in recent months from talk of a “multi-polar world” to balance the U.S., that’s still precisely how he sees matters. As an editorial in L’Express recently put it, “It is time to say to the French people that Europe cannot take 15 years or more [to approve the constitution] faced with the American power and the rise of China.”
Perhaps the most interesting subtext of the debate is the issue of Turkey’s entrance into the European Union, which is seen as a wedge between the pro-Europe elite and the public, the majority of whom are opposed to it. On this subject, Chirac seems to have lost touch with most of his constituents–he’s gone out of his way to promote Turkish entry, even suggesting that one day Islam will be as much a part of Europe’s roots as Christianity once was. And although he has promised a separate referendum for the question of Turkey when it comes up in 10 to 15 years (at which time France’s Muslim population will be 30 percent to 40 percent), he has also subtly played down the fact that one key area over which the constitution would have supranational jurisdiction is immigration policy.
The question of a European Turkey throws the most light onto the slapdash character of Chirac’s “yes” campaign. Although his UMP party almost unanimously supports the constitution, much of the party opposes Turkey’s European bid–including Nicolas Sarkozy, the recently elected head of the UMP and Chirac’s most feared political rival. He’s against Turkey while being for the constitution, but has drawn strong criticism from la Chiraquie, Chirac’s trusted allies, for not being outspoken enough in his support of the constitution.
In public Sarkozy defends the constitution on the grounds that Turkey isn’t going away, and that a “no” vote would keep Europe on the level of a loose economic community, which would allow Turkey easier entrance into Europe without proving its commitment to political integration. Many French are wary of a Europe potentially dominated by a Muslim nation which hasn’t proven its loyalty to democratic ideals, a country where there were widespread demonstrations against International Women’s Day, and where Mein Kampf has recently been near the top of the best-seller list. Sarkozy, it should be noted, is one of the most vigorous and eloquent proponents of integrating Muslims into the French republic (see his recent book La République, les religions, l’espérance).
But there is something to the claim that Sarkozy isn’t speaking out enough, as Chirac’s supporters claim: If the constitution fails, Chirac will take a huge political hit (although he has vowed not to resign), and will be in an even weaker position to run for a third-term of the presidency, the job Sarkozy clearly covets. And when “Sarko” admits on television that a no vote would “not be a catastrophe” and spends much of his time talking about his own political ambitions it’s hard not to tell where his priorities lie.
IN RECENT WEEKS Chirac has claimed that France will become “the black sheep” of Europe, and “peace, stability, democracy, human rights, and economic development and social progress in the world of tomorrow” all hang in the balance with the referendum. The government has even gone so far as to distribute a children’s book entitled Explain the European Constitution to Me, with a preface by former French president and constitution “founding father” Valery Giscard d’Estaing.
There is time yet for Chirac to turn the tide (although the “no” vote rose to 56 percent in polls last weekend following Chirac’s television appearance on the constitution’s behalf). If he doesn’t, it’s doubtful that European democracy as we know it will end. But it’s very possible Chirac’s remaining political ambitions could be wrecked for good.
Tim Lehmann is assistant director of the Project for the New American Century.
