CHRONIC. In each camp, the candidates compete until they eliminate each other. A promising demolition company. As proof, already, the delectable Hollande-Cazeneuve battles.
Everyone, from experience, knows the advantages and disadvantages of primaries. To divide candidates belonging to the same party between them, these are procedures organized in good intelligence, promoting a good level confrontation where everyone will give the best of themselves, from which a previously defined electoral college will decide.
This theoretical (and idyllic) scenario is unfortunately inevitably polluted: competition pushes to rivalry, rivalry to confrontation, confrontation to denigration. What should have been policed becomes wild. We had to distinguish ourselves, we are trying to demolish ourselves. No neighborhood. Slap machine. The final winner comes out battered, his competitors having spared him none of his inadequacies, his errors, his vices. The defeated will have difficulty convincing the sincerity of their obligatory support for the winner.
Démolition inévitable
The primaries, in short, force competitors from the same camp to demolish each other. Whereas, without primaries, competitors from the same camp are forced to demolish each other. Look for the difference! Except that it is a constant fight, without procedure or protocol, and therefore without a televised debate. Although it attracted less media attention, the fight was no less wild. The survival of each presidential candidate depends on it.
We are almost there. The primaries, on the non-Melenchonist left as well as on the non-extreme right, are floundering or collapsing. All it takes is one adult candidate refusing to do so to close the case. Everyone’s interest drives their strategy. In the absence of solemn, proper primaries, we are left with wild skirmishes which, of course, will escalate until they become as lethal as possible.
On the right, between Edouard Philippe, Gabriel Attal and Bruno Retailleau, the scuffles still remain classic. Against Philippe and Attal, the trial is planned in collaboration with a hated macronie, responsible for all the degradations of France, from which Retailleau, although Minister of the Interior that he once was, feels freed. He, in addition to his social conservatism, is suspected of a sulphurous attraction towards the union of the rights.
« Collegiality bÃclée »
The most advanced of the combative preliminaries is, for the moment, on the left. To justify his departure from the leadership of the PS, Boris Vallaud describes Olivier Faure’s leadership of the party as ” isolation strategy », « information tronquée », « collégialité bâclée and brutalization of authorities “, all assessments which do not bode well for what Faure would be and would do at the Élysée!
But the most fun is found in the trio Hollande, Cazeneuve, Glucksmann who get along in speckled foils.
Hollande versus Cazeneuve (his friend) and Glucksmann: “JI’m different from others. I have already been president and I was not a candidate for my own succession in 2017 HAS”. What both ? novices » might respond that he was simply not in the condition to present himself without risking tar and feathers! Hollande versus Glucksmann: “ I, Europe, have practiced it: not like Raphael, but at the level of heads of state. » Irrefutable arguments of authority and prior art. Glucksmann prefers his eternal smile to a frontal response, embodying a renewed reformist left rather than a worn-out “Dutch” one.
A scathing response
Cazeneuve, for his part, does not give his friend Hollande a new nickname to enrich his already rich collection. He reserves this for Faure, described as “ jar of gelatin HAS” ! But his polite response to Hollande is much more scathing and devastating: “ Our approaches are not similar in all respects. For my part, I did not support the constitution of the New Popular Front (NFP) and I left the PS in 2022 in disagreement with the alliance made with LFI. “While Hollande shamelessly got himself elected as a deputy by messing around with parties and ideas that he fights… An opportunism that a former president who wants to become one again should not be guilty of, right?
We are only at the very beginning. The fight will only really stop a few months before the presidential election, when competitors will agree to withdraw in favor of those better placed than them, to agree, to come together to avoid the RN/LFI face-to-face. As long as, at least, they agree to come to an agreement and as long as they have not discredited themselves too much in their qualifying approach tests.
