Among obvious truths all too often heard and that have never been challenged, there is a belief that an unpopular government is a government that fails.
Indeed, the tyranny of the polls in politics, and the tyranny of stock prices on the markets, lead government authorities to make decisions only based on the short-term gratification of voters and shareholders. And particularly in France, the popularity index of leaders is confused with the effectiveness of their policy.
This in itself is a mistaken analysis. Firstly, because the short-term interest of voters and shareholders of an individual does not merge with their long-term interest. Then because they are not the only players in the destiny of their organizations: the younger generations who do not vote, same for employees, and consumers, who have no influence on share prices, are obviously concerned about the fate of the nation and the future of the company.
Of course it may be possible that an unpopular political leader be also a bad leader in the long term, and that his unpopularity be the sign of the lucidity of a people. But it is not established. While a leader who would make courageous decisions, (such as reducing public debt, putting an end to waste, favoring those who work, addressing rents, favoring risk-taking) would obviously be unpopular.
Of course, it is much better, for a political leader, to be unpopular but provisionally, to be re-elected. But perhaps, on the contrary one should not concern himself with that, and admit defeat in advance.
The leader in order to choose such an attitude must not consider the next opinion poll, but how to leave his mark on history. They both are equally narcissistic behaviors. One of the two is even more narcissistic, which attaches importance to the impression that it will make on future generations. The same seems likely to be true of parents’ attitudes, and the daily quest for popularity with their kids for some; or for others, as they teach them, without worrying too much about pleasing them, to endure the burdens and duties of the world.
Who should have received preferred attention? The popular Chamberlain or the unpopular Churchill? The popular Berlusconi or the unpopular Monti? The popular Poincare or the unpopular Clemenceau? Today is it necessary to be popular like governments that are reducing taxes and increasing public spending, or unpopular like the few who make a serious effort to do the opposite?
And in today’s France ? Is it necessary to denounce the unpopularity of the President? Is it necessary to urge him to make every effort to rise in the polls? Or is it necessary on the contrary to advise him to have the courage not to worry about it to drive the reforms needed in the country? Is it necessary to urge him not to touch anything, to let deficits slip to create artificial jobs? Or assume unpopularity, if it is the price to pay to reduce deficits, break rents? That could be judged soon with the 2014 budget, the reform of lifelong training and that of social security, just to mention the most urgent projects.
Of course, there would be nothing worse than to be unpopular for the wrong reasons, that is to say to disappoint without reforming. Or be unpopular because one explains badly one’s action. Perhaps the position taken on Syria should have been explained better, which I approved, and not let multiply the contradictions on fiscal targets.
Be that as it may: in a country in such difficulty, not to try at all costs to be popular is the only honorable thing left. Unpopularity is good news. And, incidentally, in such a rebellious country, it is even the only way to hope to win elections.