It is particularly supported by the voters

Fire the premier British Harold Wilson used to quip that: "A week is a long time in politics." In the thirty weeks which separate us from the next French presidential election, any prediction made today can be reversed, and then to s' inverser reverse again, before the vote. Both candidates appear yet consistently in polls as clear favorite: right Nicolas Sarkozy and Ségolène Royal to the left. In fact, they have more common points that it seems, because each speaks a break with the past while incarnating a form of continuity.

For Sarkozy, "break" reflects both deeply personal and mundanely tactical choices. The twelve years of Presidency of Jacques Chirac, and the French tradition of alternation of power, is a victory for the left. Positioning himself as the candidate who represents a sharp break with the unpopular current policies is the only way to escape this fate.

This is reflected in Sarkozy openly pro-American position, an act of political courage in a France where anti-Americanism is the rating. Sarkozy's message is that Chirac and Villepin had reason in substance to oppose adventure Iraq military, but they are there are taken can no longer evil. Thus, his deep admiration for the "American values", although she is sincere, implies not embrace of President George w. Bush. It also reassures the French business world, shocked by the flamboyant opposition of Dominique de Villepin to the United States when it was Prime Minister of Chirac.

Sarkozy sent his message especially for youth, launching a patriotic call to the values of work and discipline, a counter-revolutionary revolution. The revolution that must be overcome is that of may 68, whose leaders and supporters, according to Sarkozy, could lose politically to de Gaulle, but deeply weakened the France in the decades following with emphasis on their "false values." By contrast, rebelling against his parents generation and rediscovering traditional moral stances will save the France, a message is applicable to issues, such as education and immigration, which may dominate the election campaign.

In the case of Royal "break" is both obvious and more visible. It seeks to become the first woman President of the French Republic. To achieve her goal, she prefers to insist on its "essence", thus counterbalance to the side "doer" Sarkozy. His appeal to voters is simple: "I am a woman, and you have never tried a woman President, so be modern and try one today.". Hiding behind the originality (in French presidential politics) of her sex, Royal has avoided to engage so far on a detailed program. When curious journalists asking for more detail about his policy agenda, his line of the most effective defence (so far!) has been: "you would not dare to ask me such a question if I wasn't a woman!"

Royal's program is ultimately its popularity. In foreign policy, it can only guess what would be its priorities. In so far as Europe is concerned, it appears as "agnostic" Sarkozy, who, like her, embodies a new generation of "post-European" leaders. In terms of values, the insistence of Royal on the discipline and the family she also appears to represent a rupture with may 68.

According to the polls, Royal is clearly the favorite of the left and the only one capable to beat Sarkozy. It is particularly supported by the voters. For the PS, which is eager to regain power, but that is not yet recovered from the humiliation of defeat of Lionel Jospin in the first round of the 2002 election, the question is whether it can afford to resist the wave of public opinion behind Royal.

Many opponents of Royal among leaders and socialist activists, the dominance of the media in the political process is leading to the poor: the qualities required to be elected are almost becoming incompatible with those needed to govern. Socialist critics of Royal, the "hollywoodization" of politics from which it benefits entails a new approach in which leaders follow and followers lead. It can issue the same Sarkozy criticism. In addition, the two candidates embody continuity (with Chirac, the Gaullist with the socialism of François Mitterrand for Royal and Sarkozy) as failure. Royal openly claims the legacy of Mitterrand for legitimacy, while Sarkozy of the legacy of Chirac's rejection has more to do with the form than substance. Sarkozy, it is ultimately a Chirac with something more, so that Royal, this is clearly a Mitterrand with something less. When the voters decide, their choice may depend more negative than positive considerations, as in 2002 when Chirac faced Jean-Marie Le Pen in the second round. As five years ago, the winner of the next election will be the the electorate hates or fears less. Whatever the outcome, the personalities will prevail on the programs.