WI: French President Chirac got murdered in 2002

Babatus

Donor
Well, I had this idea since a few months, so I guess it will be my first post here (even if it seems that it was posted in a thread 4 years ago). Unfortunatly, I got nor a sufficient knowledge nor the time to post a complete TL.

In 2002, during the 14th of July military parade, Maxime Brunerie, a member of the radical far-right group "Unité Radicale" attempted to murder President Chirac using a .22 rifle. Fortunatly, it failed, but let's say that Brunerie got lucky and managed to get a clear shot and to kill Jacques Chirac. What would bethe consequence on France interior politics and on the world ?

Obvious results: According to the Constitution, Christian Poncelet, the Senate President become the President by interim, and a new election must be organized before 35 days (that is a short delay). What would be interresting is that this new election will happens less than 3 months after the "famous" 2002 election, where Jean Marie Le Pen, head of the far-right Front National managed to get to the 2nd round. For a quick overview of France political spectrum:

- Violent crackdown on all the extremist far right activist group. As in OTL, Unite Radicale is obviously gone, but here I don't see any chance for new groups to emerge a few years after, so no Bloc Identitaire for example. People like Fabrice Robert, who OTL got a marginal influence on the Front National, totally dissapears from the french political scene.
Even if it isn't involved, the Front National will suffer a huge backslash, especially after the mass hysteria caused by the 2002 election (where you got spot on TV litteraly comparing the situation with the rise of the nazis). So short term they are out of the game, the may got a score of around 10% on the upcoming election. The long term consequences on their line and influence on french policy may be interessing, especially as the "causes" of their success (immigration...) will not be butterflied away.

- Will the Partis Socialiste call back Jospin, who officially "withdrawn from politics" after his huge defeat? Or will an other candidate emerge, like Laurent Fabius for example. Hollande may be excluded from the potential candidate given his lack of national influence at this time (?).

- The UMP, that is still the Union Pour la Majorite Presidentielle, is favorite for the upcoming election, but again I don't see any "clear" candidate emerging. As Prime Minister, Jean Pierre Raffarin may be a possibility but it was virtually unknown from the french public (I remember his nomination was a huge suprise when it came). Stay two other possibilities, Sarkozy (Minister of the Interior) and Juppé (who OTL became President of the UMP in November) (uh oh, this situation remind me something). Sarkozy was hugely popular when he was Minister of the Interior, but I don't recall if it was the case just two month after his nomination. Also, what it is interesting is that it was before the "Karcher" and the "National Identity" line, if I remind correctly he was pretty centrist at this time. Juppé is also a serious candidate (and he got experience as a Prime Minister), but he may soon have some problems with the french justice, as in OTL.
 
Last edited:
The process of selecting a proper candidate in such a short notice is surely a hazardous one.

Sarkozy hasn't yet achieved national prominence as he would with the crisis of 2005, and Chirac had only let him in the government with reluctance due to Sarkozy's support of Balladur in 95. Juppé being one of the most prominent barons from the Gaullist old guard, a Chirac loyalist and Prime Minister until 1997, he carries much weight and shouldn't have much problem to become UMP candidate.

As for the PS, Fabius has the advantage of solid credentials in the government as a former Prime Minister, but I wouldn't rule out Strauss-Kahn, considered back in 2002 as a possible PM for Jospin, and is a strong figure among Socialists.
 

Archibald

Banned
Wow, a French politics whatif. There would indeed have a presidential election ASAP (within 2 months)

And it would be a major clusterfuck !

Jospin returning is an interesting scenario. The other socialist candidates are depressing: DSK is a walking dick (yes, he already was long, long before 2011), Fabius has blood in his hands (Rainbow Warrior and the HIV tainted blood scandal) and his ego is the size of planet Jupiter.

On the right: as said above, Sarkozy was barely recovering from his Balladur treatise. I think it may be Juppé indeed, although he suffered from a lack of image - cold, glacial.

A duel Strauss Khan vs Juppé would be something to see.
 
Instead of choosing an 'easy' Alternate History scenario: The FN wins the presidential elections in '02; you choose an interesting What If.

Let's roll up the candidates, shall we?
JOSPIN (PS): An obvious choice for the PS... but with one issue: he decided to retire from politics after the '02 elections. Can he come back? Well... It depends on him.
FABIUS (PS): He was a Prime Minister OTL and he's well-known in the public. He can have a chance.
HOLLANDE (PS): The OTL French President. Can he become president earlier? No. He isn't known by the people, only the few from Tulle. Sorry François, but you'll have to wait.

Now on to the right-wing...
SARKOZY (UMP): Well, well, well... What do we have? Probably a good choice but he would be seen by some us a traitor (Galileo mentionned it, he supported Balladur in 1995).
JUPPE (UMP): In my opinion, the favorite candidate for the UMP as he's a support of Chirac.

Now, the FAR-right...
LE PEN (FN): Even with Chirac's death and the public outrage following it, that wouldn't stop Jean-Marie Le Pen from trying to present himself to this election.
 

Archibald

Banned
Fabius was actually candidate to the 2006 socialist primary, together with Segolene Royal and Strauss-Khan. He come a distant third. I can tell you that French people really, really dislike Fabius for many reasons, many of them linked to be being Francois Miterrand premier and all the scandals and dirty tricks that went along it. Also, Fabius has a consequent fortune, something unexpected for a socialist.

The Jospin return hypothesis is very, very tempting - but also totally unpredictible. A Juppé versus Jospin duel would be quite interesting in the sense they have mostly similar characters and drawbacks: they are "cold" intellectuals, lacking humour - they are not "funny" in the sense of Chirac telling Thatcher "What does that old witch want, my balls on a plate ?"

EDIT: Hey, O'Alexis, didn't realized you are French. Welcome on the board.
 
Last edited:
I would go for Jospin. Obviously he said he was leaving politics and seems to be bound by a sense of honour to his word, but that is quite an exceptional situation.

I would think his honour would tell him to run for president rather than letting the country in chaos.
 

Archibald

Banned
I vaguely remember that when all the fuss about the 2006 Socialist primary started (in summer 2005) Jospin was tempted but instead he went explaining why he had retired from politics in 2002.
A Jospin come back would be interesting. He was not a bad man and his time as PM was a very good period for France - for example, the economy was running much better than Germany. But he completely screwed his presidential run in 2002. He was overconfident he would face Chirac and didn't see how fractured the left was, with a crapton of candidates that fractured the vote. It was my first presidential election and I voted for Christiane Taubira and then was forced to vote Chirac rather than Le Pen.
Coming only months after 9/11 the French presidential election was one of the worse ever. It was completely screwed, notably by the medias that grossly inflated the fear and terror born out of the 9/11. The media behaviour was a shame.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_presidential_election,_2002
 

Babatus

Donor
Instead of choosing an 'easy' Alternate History scenario: The FN wins the presidential elections in '02; you choose an interesting What If.

Honnestly, I don't think the FN got any real chance to win the 2002 presidential election without a really early PoD.


For the potential candidates, I don't know the official delay for the candidates to declare themselves, but two factors may influence it. First, a lot of the "small" candidates of the april election may be financially washed up at this step. I think it was the case of the Partis Communiste for example. Second, are the "500 Signatures" in this case of emergency election? I don't see this rule causing any problem for the major instutionnal party (so, no problem for an eventual Bayrou candidature), but it may cause problem for the Front National (even if it is hard to tell if their difficulties to got their signature at each election may be an act). Adding it to the huge potential media hysteria on the second rise of fascism in France may cause some trouble to the good old Jean Marie. A terrible score of the Front National (compared to their previous performance) or an absence of candidature may have potential huge long term consequences for the party.
So a potential united left and a backslash for the FN may conduct to a "traditionnl" UMP vs PS 2nd turn.

It is probable that Jospin may do a come back as the PS canidate, but the UMP candidate (probably Juppé as said earlier) is a clear favorite for the 2nd turn for multiple reason.
First, the PS may suffer a lack of credibility after their huge defeat in april. Second at this step I think Chirac at his governement were still very popular in the french opinion. Last but not least, we have the traditionnal "rally round the flag" with also Chirac becoming a marty for democracy.

So a new UMP president, probably Juppé, with eventually Sarkozy getting an higher influence in the governement. Thus, what was the political line of Juppé a this time ? He was a pretty hardliner in '95 (even if he is considered as a "peacefulreformer" now), at least on the economical field. He also don't know how he was considered as involved in the corruption scandals by the opinion at this step, but I guess that theses affairs will be put under the carpet by the justice if he happens to be elected...
 

Archibald

Banned
At the time the FN was at 15% to 20% of the overall electorate, and that too few for the standard presidential election - 1988, 1995, but 2002 was not. Le Pen used to fail at the first round. I can't see the FN winning the 2002 election. Much later Le Pen himself more or less recognized that a) he had been stunned and b) he didn't knew what to do. Whatever, he got a 20-to-80 slam in his face.
"Votez escroc, pas facho" (vote for the fraud, not the fascist)

Back then the FN was still Le Pen father, that is WWII antisemitism and OAS - Algerian war hatred of muslims. Old school racism, dare I say.
The daughter (and the niece !) more or less renegaded that old school racism and updated it to nowadays standard fears - globalization and the like.
 

Archibald

Banned
Honnestly, I don't think the FN got any real chance to win the 2002 presidential election without a really early PoD.


For the potential candidates, I don't know the official delay for the candidates to declare themselves, but two factors may influence it. First, a lot of the "small" candidates of the april election may be financially washed up at this step. I think it was the case of the Partis Communiste for example. Second, are the "500 Signatures" in this case of emergency election? I don't see this rule causing any problem for the major instutionnal party (so, no problem for an eventual Bayrou candidature), but it may cause problem for the Front National (even if it is hard to tell if their difficulties to got their signature at each election may be an act). Adding it to the huge potential media hysteria on the second rise of fascism in France may cause some trouble to the good old Jean Marie. A terrible score of the Front National (compared to their previous performance) or an absence of candidature may have potential huge long term consequences for the party.
So a potential united left and a backslash for the FN may conduct to a "traditionnl" UMP vs PS 2nd turn.

It is probable that Jospin may do a come back as the PS canidate, but the UMP candidate (probably Juppé as said earlier) is a clear favorite for the 2nd turn for multiple reason.
First, the PS may suffer a lack of credibility after their huge defeat in april. Second at this step I think Chirac at his governement were still very popular in the french opinion. Last but not least, we have the traditionnal "rally round the flag" with also Chirac becoming a marty for democracy.

So a new UMP president, probably Juppé, with eventually Sarkozy getting an higher influence in the governement. Thus, what was the political line of Juppé a this time ? He was a pretty hardliner in '95 (even if he is considered as a "peacefulreformer" now), at least on the economical field. He also don't know how he was considered as involved in the corruption scandals by the opinion at this step, but I guess that theses affairs will be put under the carpet by the justice if he happens to be elected...

Lot of good points. In fact Sarkozy as of 2002 had next to zero electoral base, so Juppé may humiliate him - not picking him at all.

I think that Sarkozy return in 2002 was because of Bernadette Chirac insistance - she managed to convince her husband to pardon Sarkozy. Even today that old witch (she is worse than Thatcher) is still rooting for Sarkozy to return in 2017.
 
Juppé got a lot of good will back after being found guilty (and every one in France knew he was guilty before the verdict was reached) by emigrating to Québec and getting into environmental policy while over there. He even managed to shed some of his dour reputation, something of a miracle for him. Then he was royally screwed over by Sarkozy in 2007 when he had to resign his virtual deputy PM position because he had been defeated for election to député, something that makes sense in the Westminster system and doesn't in ours, since the ministers have to let the suppléants step in. In 2002, he was tainted by the scandals and the hugh backlash he had provoked in the 1995 strikes. Chirac did not make him a minister and instead gave him the presidency of the UMP so that he could repair his reputation and win in 2007. Sarkozy will make a run at it, of course, but he doesn't control the apparatus of the system, he hasn't been Minister for the Interior for long enough to have done enough networking and Juppé is, when all is said and done, the natural heir to Chirac. Bernadette and Claude Chirac might not necessarily agree between them, though.

After the shellacking the socialists took in the legislative elections, they have essentially three options. Keep bickering and jockeying for position as Fabius, DSK and Hollande did in May and June and I wouldn't put it past them since they're socialists; or call back Jospin from retirement who could say it is a time for healing the nation and where a firm, steady and proven hand would be the best thing. Or they could go completely radical and select a relative newcomer like Delanoë to try and shed the 'elephants in control' image of the party. There is the drawback that Delanoë is relatively untested and openly gay which could prove a problem in 2002 France. But he looks squeaky clean in comparison to Fabius and DSK and he is not associated with the failure of Jospin: on the contrary, he has put a stop to 24 years of the RPR's hold on Paris mayoralty.

As for Le Pen, he is a non-issue: the (OTL would-be) assassin was a far-right extremist and that'll decrease his share in the electorate. If I remember correctly, one of the man who thwarted his attempt was an undocumented immigrant. If he still manages to struggle with him or to block his escape, that might assuage some fears about insecurity.

I imagine with only two months to prepare, some of the lesser candidates won't manage to collect 500 endorsements from elected officials who must have cringed at the result of April 21st. The election won't happen during the holidays either bringing absention down. Those two facts alone ensure the PS and UMP candidates will face each other in the second round. There WILL be a debate and this one might actually prove pivotal, whoever the candidates are. The PS candidate will have to make the case that they loyally went for the Front Républicain against the FN and that a vote for Chirac did not mean approval of his policies, simply rejection of Le Pen, while trying not to seem to tarnish Chirac's name by bringing up the fact that he and Bachelot, his campaign manager, played on the insecurity feelings of the French for all it was worth.

All in all, a very unpredictable election. If the UMP wins, they'll keep the Assemblée intact, but if it's the PS, they'll have to call for new elections. That might play against them. The former case is interesting because it would mean the Assemblée and the President are still chosen in the same year but in reverse order of what both Jospin and Chirac wanted.
 
I'm aware this may risk going political but I will try restraining my answer on this forum section to considerations within the historical frame.

Even today that old witch (she is worse than Thatcher) is still rooting for Sarkozy to return in 2017.
Please be respectful here. I may be a centrist liberal who despises much Sarkozy, but even if Bernadette Chirac is a very conservative (and devout) woman, the comparison with Thatcher is pointless, and the adjective used disrepectful. For many French people, including myself, she is still the Opération Pièce Jaunes' lady (a yearly charity fundraising) and her political engagement in favor of Sarkozy, while not a secret, isn't much a matter of public concern as far as the former First Lady's political activity is very occasional.
5999-l-equipe-pieces-jaunes-637x0-1.jpg


Juppé got a lot of good will back after being found guilty (and every one in France knew he was guilty before the verdict was reached) by emigrating to Québec and getting into environmental policy while over there. He even managed to shed some of his dour reputation, something of a miracle for him. Then he was royally screwed over by Sarkozy in 2007 when he had to resign his virtual deputy PM position because he had been defeated for election to député, something that makes sense in the Westminster system and doesn't in ours, since the ministers have to let the suppléants step in. In 2002, he was tainted by the scandals and the hugh backlash he had provoked in the 1995 strikes. Chirac did not make him a minister and instead gave him the presidency of the UMP so that he could repair his reputation and win in 2007. Sarkozy will make a run at it, of course, but he doesn't control the apparatus of the system, he hasn't been Minister for the Interior for long enough to have done enough networking and Juppé is, when all is said and done, the natural heir to Chirac. Bernadette and Claude Chirac might not necessarily agree between them, though.
I'm not sure what's the point here.
The affairs involving politicians are so numerous that it's become usual for average French people (Juppé himself, DSK, Sarkozy, Balladur, Juppé, Fabius, Tapie .... ) that when a case about a politician is opened, presumption of culpability is a frequent occurrence in public opinion, but often end in acquittals after which the said politician can still go back into political life depending on how his reputation has been hit: Juppé and Chirac's cases are significant as the former is today the favorite candidate for Republican nomination and the presidential election, and Chirac, in spite of many proven offences (the last time I heard of the judicial proceeding, his lawyers were citing senility as a line of defense), remains the French's preferred public person.
Juppé's reputation resurgence can be attributed to his stay away from power institutions (a situation forced on him by bad timing of judicial proceedings and Sarkozist takeover), a stay which has had the effect in the eyes of public to dissociate him from the government action and making him look like he remained above the fray.
Something similar happened for François Hollande after he quit PS leadership to return four years later as a candidate in socialists primaries, ideally situated to benefit from the explosion of the then PS' arch-favorite candidate DSK, a withdrawal I think (that an opinion) was maybe a forethought move at the contrary of Juppé, with the same effect of appearing a new man above the fray.

That said, the reason why Juppé is more likely to carry the nomination holds itself in the power balance within UMP and the short time to the election.
By 2002, UMP which is the last avatar of the RPF, is dominated by the old 'gaullist' gard of which both Chirac and Juppé, not counting Philippe Séguin. Sarkozy's takeover of the UMP in 2004 embodies the advent of a new guard we can define as 'Sarkozist' by opposition to the 'Gaullist' old guard, characterized by a confrontational stance and a pronounced populism which contrasted with the old style 'paternalistic' and consensual conservatism of Chirac, one development shown by Nicolas Sarkozy's tenure as Minister of the Interior during the riots of 2005. One of the reasons Sarkozy was rejected in 2012 is that he was blamed for taking his populist stance to the point of entertaining an atmosphere of 'fear', by promoting policies borrowed from the National Front for electoral purposes, and in that way, many votes were more anti-Sarkozy than pro-Hollande. A side consequence is that the figure of Juppé, representative of the old consensual moderate conservatism of Chirac years, was much more positively perceived.
To return to our 2002 election, this whole thing doesn't enter in the consideration since Sarkozy hasn't yet achieved prominence in the UMP to impose his style, and the UMP is still one of the old gaullist guard, more susceptible of being associated with past abuses and corruption cases than it's today, but it nevertheless shall benefit from public sympathy over Chirac's assassination.
Then, the short delay to set up the election means it's unlikely any of the competing parties will go through the usual contest, that it will be up to the party's direction to select one and organize a symbolic vote to endorse it, but I can't say it with much certainty. We shall look at the 1974 precedent for guidance.


The PS candidate will have to make the case that they loyally went for the Front Républicain against the FN and that a vote for Chirac did not mean approval of his policies, simply rejection of Le Pen, while trying not to seem to tarnish Chirac's name by bringing up the fact that he and Bachelot, his campaign manager, played on the insecurity feelings of the French for all it was worth.
I believe that this doesn't matter here.
The accession of Le Pen to the second round was kind of an 'accident' (9/11 had set a temporary mood favorable to the FN, a situation that won't happen until Sarkozy's stigmatization of immigrants along the economic situation put the topic back at the forefront), electorally speaking (while Marine Le Pen's strategy of undemonizing the FN makes the perspective of this happening again without it being an accident).
There isn't to defend the action of calling to vote for Chirac on partisan ground since nobody, back then, needed political figures telling FN was a threat, Jean-Marie Le Pen, an unrepentant racist and negationist in his positions, which ruled him out as an ever possible choice for president, an opinion that was clearly expressed in the landslide victory for Chirac: it's hard to find 82% victory margins in a democratic system.
 
In fact Sarkozy as of 2002 had next to zero electoral base, so Juppé may humiliate him - not picking him at all.
That's not as simple. As I said, Sarkozy was a figure of the new guard which embodied the renovation of UMP, its transformation from a party in the old gaullist mold to a more modern form, and as such, he could hardly be ignored by either Chirac or Juppé, although Chirac did never forgave him for having sided with Balladur in 1995 and held him away from Matignon all the time.
 
Top