The Language of Leadership in Contemporary France

Citation

Gamble, C.J. (1998), "The Language of Leadership in Contemporary France", European Business Review, Vol. 98 No. 2, pp. 138-138. https://doi.org/10.1108/ebr.1998.98.2.138.5

This is a fascinating book. The title suggests that the book is relevant only to contemporary France: this is misleading, for it is especially relevant to Europe today. Why? Because Jacques Delors is a Frenchman.

The focus of this book is the language of French politicians and an explanation of their success or failure based almost exclusively on their image, projected by their speech. The political discourse of the following is analysed, in nine chapters, each written by separate contributors: Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, François Mitterrand, Edith Cresson, Jean‐Marie Le Pen, Georges Marchais, Jacques Delors and trade union leadership. A curious and somewhat unusual inclusion is that of Jean‐Marie Tjibaou, the leader of the Front de Libération Nationale Kanak et Socialiste (FLNKS), that is to say, the coalition of left‐wing groups in New Caledonia seeking independence from France.

Although each French politician has his or her own style, their common pattern of fundamentally linear oratory is steeped in French political culture, a discourse in which “chronology is a crucial influence on the structure of an effective speech” (p. 200) and which is much more important than the content. Indeed, it is suggested that the reason why Edith Cresson failed so rapidly was due to her refusal to adapt her discourse to that which the electorate expected of a prime minister (p. 100). Cresson is now EU Commissioner for Education, Training and Youth: it would be interesting to compare her present discourse with that used when she was prime minister.

Delors used the French language to shape Europe according to his own wishes and vision and in a style not unlike that of de Gaulle, during the former’s ten‐year presidency (1985‐95) or the Commission of the European Communities. Delors created a more and more powerful role for himself and conferred legitimacy upon it solely through his casuistry and linguistic ability. He cunningly did not accept responsibility for problems but rather placed them, and the blame for them, upon the shoulders of member states. Delors was essentially using the discourse and tactics of Mitterrand, and both remained in power for two full mandates (ten and 14 years respectively) essentially by their skilful use of the French language, for both were highly educated Frenchmen, or perhaps I should say, educated in the traditional French educational system. The image of “plain, honest John”, almost boasting of not having had a university education, placed John Major and the UK, at a great disadvantage at the European negotiating table. British politicians are at a clear linguistic disadvantage, for French remains to this day the dominant language of the eurocrats in Brussels, a tradition now continued by Santer.

This is a book which politicians could and should study to their advantage. It contains good advice such as: “You should only speak when you are in a strong position” (p. 86). This was, incidentally, the advice given by Mitterrand’s communications expert, Jacques Pilhan, to Edith Cresson and which she ignored.

Complete transcripts of the speeches, and also tape recordings, would be useful adjuncts to the book. Had the contributors and publishers considers such a development?

This kind of material would be invaluable for language work in universities and colleges.