Vive la Presidente Royal!

What do you think of Segolene Royal? Probably you might think that she is a better alternative than Sarkozy as the centre-left candidate, but she is not competent and able enough, or "lightweight"? I've been getting that kind of impression from most articles on Royal's campaign. I'm sick and tired of reading how incompetent and inexperienced she is, how struggling and desperate her campaign is. Like this new AP article. Where are the opinions of 'experts' who believe Royal can win? I've heard of her comment she allegedly made in China gazllion times; where is the mention of her speech that steadily stood for the human rights, condemning the "war crimes in Chechnya" committed by the "corrupt regime"?

It may be true that in the "polls" conducted by the media show that Royal is trailing Sarkozy, but it's because the media itself report as if her chance of occupying the one of the most powerful jobs in the world at the Elysee Palace were already precluded. They say that French voter's voting behaviour is notoriously hard to detect in the polls, but still regard the opinion polls as the oracle correctly prophesising the future. What's the use of updating the newest poll everyday and analysing the difference of few percents between candidates in the opinion poll (well within the margin of error) when nearly half the French voters haven't decided whom to support? The bandwagon effect, not the shortcomings of Royal herself, is what truly blocks her noble road to the Presidency. The media report on polls actually have a profound influence on the voter behaviour; if Royal supporters believe the poll that says Bayrou has a better chance of beating Sarkozy in the second round, they might not vote accordingly with what their conscience tells them, robbing the deserving victory away from Royal.

(As I can't read French it is just an analysis of the English-language media's report on Segolene Royal and the French election. Obviously on the election itself French newspaper's impact is far stronger than the English-language media, so if you can read French your views on the French newspaper's stance on Royal are much appreciated.)

Paris-based International Herald Tribune (published by the New York Times), for example, called Royal's economic policies "far-left". What sort of freedom-hating communist woman is she? Well, she dares to raise the minimum wage and "to tax capital more than labor". "She also promised free tutoring for students that have difficulties keeping up" and "she would tax companies in relation to what share of their profits is reinvested in equipment and jobs, and what portion is paid to shareholders"; what a despicable Stalinist! "Under her presidency, she said, young women would get free contraception", the article goes, after making the baseless assumption that "she seemed to have something to offer to most groups in society without saying how much the combined measures would cost".

This article appears in the top page (fourth-highest in the ranking) when you Google "Segolene Royal", making this biased article matter more than it deserves.

Sarkozy indeed gets accused of his cold-hearted and ruthless comments and forging a close tie with Le Pen, but his ability to perform the top job is far less frequently questioned compared to Royal. Well, he has a media-created image of 'alpha male' or 'top cop', tough yet capable man to make a change.

Royal's campaign is in a way different from some other high-profile female politicians that she doesn't suppress her femininity. Three women have so far become the head of government in the G8 countries; all of them are from the conservative/right-wing parties (Thatcher, Merkel and Kim Campbell in Canada) who got elected by showing she was more masculine (Thatcher) or at least not "feminine". I don't necessary think emphasising femininity is a better way for female politicians, because it can lead to the old-fashioned embrace of femininity and rejection of non-feminine female politicians (e.g. smear attack on Helen Clark that she doesn't have a child). But it concerns me more when politicians who emphasise femininity are derided as lightweight, implying femininity has no place in politics while the media seems to take the Sarkozian macho attitude to denote capabilities as a drastic reformer.

I don't know if the media's biased coverage on Royal is because of misogyny or the media's capitalist bias, or the bias only existing in the English-language media because of its dislike of the French rejection of Anglo-Saxon free market capitalism. But anyway, no matter what the dubious opinion "polls" tell us, Segolene Royal has a realistic chance of winning the Elysee Palace. Her victory is crucial in transforming France as a viable and attractive alternative to the Anglo-Saxon capitalism. Vive la France, vive la Presidente Royal!