{"id":34406,"date":"2020-06-05T18:02:29","date_gmt":"2020-06-05T16:02:29","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/?p=34406"},"modified":"2025-12-13T22:54:41","modified_gmt":"2025-12-13T21:54:41","slug":"dantan-voice","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/leregardlibre.com\/en\/policy\/france\/dantan-voice\/","title":{"rendered":"Voices of yesteryear"},"content":{"rendered":"

Le Regard Libre N\u00b0 62<\/a> - Jonas Follonier<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

There was so much to do during those days of confinement.<\/strong> Reading the books we dreamed of one day having the time to read, getting through old files that were lying around, getting a bit more sleep, getting to know our apartment again, listening to all the Francis Cabrel albums, song by song... But it was while hanging around on YouTube that I personally came up with the best idea of all: watching the televised debates between the two rounds of the French presidential elections in 1974, 1981, 1988 and 1995.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n

To watch the old French presidential debates is to be uplifted.<\/strong> In the truest sense. We're back to being students facing real masters. In fact, at the first debate between Val\u00e9ry Giscard d'Estaing and Fran\u00e7ois Mitterrand, in 1974, we really had the impression of witnessing an exchange between a master, Giscard, and a pupil, Mitterrand. Whatever our sensibilities. The candidate of continuity imposes himself as the one who instructs. That's the impression he's giving, and it's a well-founded one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

For in those days, so different from our own in many respects, we dominated a debate in the sense that we mastered the issues, the ideas and the discourse.<\/strong> Political communication was not yet king. What counted for a candidate was being able to give his or her vision of institutions, foreign policy and the nation's place in the world. The content of discussions in those days is just incomparable with today's round-table discussions, where people take positions for or against globalization, for or against wind power, for or against immigrants, and then wrap it all up in hollow, conventional formulas.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So the debate was not a fight, but a debate.<\/strong> In other words, a discussion in which there was little or no interruption, in which one took one's opponent seriously, and even expressed one's esteem for him. Giscard and Mitterrand cultivated great respect for each other, if not admiration. This was obvious, and even more so with Chirac and Jospin in 1995. It's a little less so with Mitterrand and Chirac in 1988, it's true. But there's still that high spirit and knowledge of the issues and the country.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n

Even more striking for today's viewer: the language!<\/strong> These statesmen mastered not only the language, but also its pronunciation<\/em>. Mitterrand is, from his point of view, the most illustrious of them all. Indeed, it's not surprising that he placed literature above all else, even politics, since language - it can never be said often enough - passes through literature and vice versa. But it also goes to show that being too much at his service can leave a heavy political toll. France has never really recovered from the years of socialist rule.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Read also | Fran\u00e7ois Mitterrand, prince of ambiguity<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Some may compare today's political communication to the famous formulas of the time, but this is not the case.<\/strong> A Giscard's \u00abYou don't have a monopoly on the heart\u00bb, a Chirac's \u00abAllow me to tell you that tonight, I'm not the Prime Minister, and you're not the President of the Republic, we're two equal candidates\u00bb have become part of the French political tradition. These outings are more than just punchlines<\/em>In a few words, they sum up historical confrontations, political families and, quite simply, useful truths.<\/p>\n\n\n\n