And also on the security and social themes

French political news is dominated by the phenomenon Ségolène Royal, its decision-making power in polls, the Socialist Party, the left and the whole France. When the tenors of the PS desperately polishing their image as elections, the promotion of Ségolène Royal rang first as their discredit. But here's the surprise guest at the cemetery of elephants hollow its difference by saying his break from the Socialist taboos. It breaks simply and effectively the idols safe and social left.

In the previous episode, it is Nicolas Sarkozy who had played the same role, to the right. And also on the security and social themes. It is to have theorized this practice as "break", a supposedly liberal break in his case, but especially marked by the refusal of the politically correct. But now: today Ségolène Royal mediocrity. On the ground of failure that he had his own, he found stronger than him.

At least two major contenders agree on the political practice that will dominate the presidential election of 2007: the "break". Any semantics, in this country so strongly marked by the revolution, and which provides information, if not on the State of ideologies in France, at least on the way in which the political elite imagine that voters thereto. Finished the dogmas, verbal stress, the true talk has taken a new form: it must talk about cru. Thus expect the people that are addressed to him. Where this strange way of being right or left at the age of the talk about thought: should it be in agreements that define the identity claim. Understand who can!

The project that the Socialists have adopted last week also wants the breakup, but way more temperate, more cautious. He talks about "successfully set the change. It program "social emergency". This is another mania of the time. Policies decreed everywhere and in all circumstances the State of emergency: ecological emergency time for a Summit of the Earth or a Charter for the environment, social emergency now. But that is fundamentally different from the Socialist social urgency than decreed by Dominique de Villepin in the aftermath of the "no" to the European referendum when he made the "defence of the French social model" the principle of its policy an emergency already asserted by Jacques Chirac in his election in 1995 with the social divide

Commentators welcomed already: with these "breaks", it will have a true debate in 2007, hear from real confrontations on true objections. It can be in doubt. Both should wonder about the reality of these failures. The break is probably an obliged to figure in the new political, right as rhetoric left. From this point of view, it announces first political debate where the language is likely to be less punishment than before. It entered the era of the linguistically hard. But what rhetorical failure guarantee us a break on the merits Should be a change in thinking systems that organize political discourse. However if one follows the Royal phenomenon, can fear that the rhetorical break serve to give the change to a deep conservatism on the merits.

Indeed, who speaks in the royalist rhetoric The France of the "no", those that have rejected the draft European Constitution, one that refuses to technological progress, as opposed to social reform, one who sees the world as a threat. Ségolène Royal says that it takes the point of view of the "France who suffers". No more legitimate, but also nothing agreed. It is a constituent element of the hypochondriac vision which encloses the French policy on the only boundaries of the France. It is a vision bounded, island of withdrawal where the France is obsession on its own headaches, real or imaginary, turning the rest of the world. Imagine what will produce the rhetoric of the break in this way: each will add on headaches, symptoms of the French disease. Each will seek the most discriminated poorer than the other, the excluded poor, the disinherited the greatest victim of the order of things, to the principle of social reconstruction. And as the headaches come from abroad globalization requires it comes out a policy of the France whose mission would be to resist and oppose to the rest of the world for this French happiness that his social model should ensure.

Wouldn't the real rupture that political thought questioned the system of thought that the dominates and wondered if it is not getting off. It is not neglecting social issues. It's to ask if, in the 21st century, the political issue will continue to play only national field as if the rest of the world did not exist. Can be dreaming of another policy for the France, a policy which would not be protective, but projection. A policy that would be not related to the preservation of a model, therefore a policy of resistance to change, but a policy bound by ambition, an ambition that would justify mobilization and overflow, requiring us to come out of ourselves and our social navel-gazing. A policy that would out the France of the "no".

One cannot help thinking that the only real political question is one of the conditions of independence in the globalized world of the 21st century. The solution of the social question itself depends on it. The challenge of independence, i.e. freedom, is also one which briefly meets the France of the "no" by illusory principled resistance to the rest of the world. The independence of the France is now several times threatened: geopolitically, economically, energetically, ideologically and environmentally. It is reverting with the old obsession of its sovereignty, whose conditions are defined in the new context, that the policy in France are the true principle of beneficial rupture. The rest is only rhetorical.