De Gaulle's Legacy

The Art of Power in France's Fifth Republic

W. Nester

• Publisher: Palgrave Macmillan
• Year: 2014
• ISBN:
  9781137483942
• Topic: Política y relaciones internacionales
• Subtopic: Políticas europeas

This book explores the following: What is the art of power? What is the art of French power? How did Charles de Gaulle understand and assert power, establishing the Fifth Republic and breaking centuries of political instability? How well or poorly have his successors wielded the art of French power to define, defend, or enhance French interests?

Chapter 1

De Gaulle and Gaullism

Great circumstances bring forth great men. Only during crises do nations throw up giants.

—Charles de Gaulle

France cannot be France without grandeur.

—Charles de Gaulle

Charles de Gaulle developed his philosophy as an army officer during the interwar years, especially when he taught at the War College. He first publicly expressed his ideas in 1924 with his book Discord among the Enemy (Discord Chez l’Enemi, 1924), whose key passages compared how French and German national character shaped their different war strategies. Then came The Edge of the Sword (Le Fil de l’Epee, 1932), Toward the Army of the Future (Vers l’Armée de Métier, 1934), and France and Its Army (La France et son Armée, 1938), in which he explained how to transform the army’s organization, strategy, and philosophy so that it could decisively win the next war. He then elaborated his political philosophy through his war memoirs written during the late 1950s and presidential memoirs written during the last year of his life, along with many of his speeches and recorded conversations.1

He had a bleak view of human nature. As a fervent Social Darwinian, he believed that anarchy and aggression ruled the world. Ultimately, one could trust only oneself. Even seemingly staunch friends could disappoint or outright betray oneself. The reason was simple: Self-interest determines behavior. Power and interests were inseparable—the more power one has, the better one can defend or advance one’s interests.

People ban together in groups to assert their common interests against those of other groups. The nation-state was the natural and best vehicle for protecting, governing, and nurturing humanity. Like each individual, each nation-state is unique: “The States are, in truth, certainly very different from one another, each of which has its own spirit, its own history, its own language, its own misfortunes, glories, and ambitions, but these states are the only entities that have the right to order and the authority to act.”2 He insisted that “the supreme interest of mankind demands that each nation be responsible for itself.”3 Nation-states form temporary alliances against common threats and shed them as soon as the threats disappear.

He explained the dynamic historical, cultural, and mystical relationship among a nation’s people, state, and interests: “Once a nation has been created—its fundamental geographical, ethnic, economic, social, and moral dimensions laid down and its linkages established with foreign influences and ambitions—there exists a general interest that transcends internal diversities . . . The recognition of this fact consolidates its unity, and it is the extent to which the State does, or does not, conform to it that determines whether its political actions succeed or fail.”4

War governed international relations: Nations were either preparing for, fighting in, or recovering from war: “War gives birth and brings death to nations. In the meantime, it never ceases to loom over their existence.”5 For de Gaulle, nothing could be more natural. He rhetorically asked, “Is it possible to conceive of life without force?” His answer was that force and human nature are inseparable. Indeed, paradoxically humanity would perish without it:

Force has guarded civilizations in the cradle; force has governed empires, and buried decadence; force gives laws to peoples and channels their destinies . . . What reason have we for thinking that passion and self-interest, the root cause of armed conflict in men and in nations, will cease to operate . . . that human nature will ever become something other than it is? Is it really likely that the present balance of power will remain unchanged so long as the small want to become great, the strong to dominate the weak . . . International agreements will be of little value unless there are troops to prevent their infringement.6

The survival-of-the-fittest imperative advances humanity. People achieve an invigorating sense of their common grandeur or greatness by triumphing over adversity. One’s sense of grandeur swells with one’s understanding of how previous generations of one’s people have vanquished their own adversaries. Victory in war is the ultimate expression of grandeur, as war inspired the best in each nation. De Gaulle insisted that all French people could take enormous pride that “France was forged by sword-strokes.”7 Yet knowing too well its array of horrors, he did not romanticize war: “War stirs in men’s hearts the mud of their worst instincts. It puts a premium on violence, nourishes hatred, and gives free rein to cupidity. It crushes the weak, exalts the unworthy, bolsters tyranny.”8

Only one force advances a nation’s grandeur more than war, and that is “a man made for great deeds,” a “man of character.”9 An individual’s character and the circumstances in which he lives are inseparable. The more challenging the times, the more opportunities permit a great leader to emerge: “Great circumstances bring forth great men. Only during crises do nations throw up giants.”10 Before then the great man is essentially a loner, isolated with his vision and potential power at society’s edge, shunned and feared by others. Yet once disaster strikes, the people recognize his gifts and anoint him their savior: “But when events take a serious turn, when danger looms . . . when the fate of all suddenly calls for initiative, for a love of danger, for steadfastness, then the perspective changes and justice is rendered. A sort of ground swell brings the man of character to the surface. His advice is listened to, his abilities are praised and one trusts oneself to his worth.”11 He believed in Jean Jacque Rousseau’s notion of a nation’s “general will.” Great leaders understand and mobilize the people’s general will against their adversaries. Once the general will is determined, all must conform to its dictates: “National unity means that . . . the common interest must be imposed on everyone.”12 Carl Jung and Joseph Campbell explored the mystical relationship among heroes and peoples so extolled by de Gaulle in their respective books, Man and His Symbols and The Hero with a Thousand Faces.13

The leader asserts power to fulfill the nation’s unique role and destiny in relation to other nations. This in turn depends on historic circumstances and varies among eras. Great leaders discern and assert the appropriate ends and means of their nation’s grandeur for the times in which they live. What is appropriate in one era may be disastrous in another. De Gaulle learned this truth from an ancient philosopher: “The Greeks once asked Solon, ‘What is the best constitution?’ He answered, ‘Tell me first for which country and for what time?’”14 Once the great man decides, he acts with all the appropriate powers at his command. He mobilizes the nation to bring out the best of the dynamic between obedience and creativity, order and initiative.

Being a leader demands mastering the star role on the political stage. To personify the nation, he must appear at once Olympian, a father figure, and a man of the people. De Gaulle genuinely enjoyed threading crowds to shake hands, squeeze shoulders, and kiss babies, an activity he likened to taking a bath amid a throng (bains de foule). Yet he mostly remained “aloof for there can be no authority without prestige, nor prestige unless he keeps his distance . . . The man of character then draws to himself the hopes and the wills of everyone as the magnet draws iron. When the crisis comes, it is him they follow, it is he who carries the burden on his own shoulders, even though they collapse under it.”15 In describing the man of character, Charles de Gaulle described how he saw himself. He fervently believed that he was just such a great man who twice had saved and personified France.

What motivates a great leader? He wants at once to shape and transcend the nation’s history in which he lives. Although often equated, de Gaulle’s “man of character” is as moral as Friedrich Nietzsche’s “superman” and Niccolò Machiavelli’s “prince” are amoral. The man of character’s morality is grounded in devoting himself to his nation, while the superman or prince serves only himself.16 Likewise Gaullism is often equated with Bonapartism because both celebrate national grandeur, a powerful state, and a leader who at once solved problems and exemplified France. Although de Gaulle admired Napoleon, he was as committed to democracy as Bonaparte was to autocracy. Nonetheless, Napoleon was a model for his power “to grasp the situation, to adapt himself to it, and to exploit it to his own advantage.”17

Reason alone cannot resolve problems. A great man’s intelligence and instinct are inseparable in guiding his understanding of the challenges facing a nation and how to overcome them, and to that end for understanding and manipulating human nature. Style matters as much and sometimes more than substance, because most people are at once shallow, ignorant, fearful, and yearning. President de Gaulle made brilliant use of all the symbols of the state and nation at his command. He was the puppet master at his press conferences with planted questions and prepared answers. He elevated himself by speaking in the third person. He wielded referendums to rally the people behind and thus legitimize his policies. Paradoxically, he believed that he could advance his goals by repelling as well as enticing, provoking as well as convincing others. At times silence could be more eloquent and influential than words in getting others to act in one’s own interests: “Nothing heightens authority more than silence.”18

French history and culture inspired de Gaulle’s philosophy of nationalism, the nation-state, and the great man of character. A sublime force bound the French people forged through 15 centuries of collective history: “We have seen created in France a sort of mystique whereby we are the center and which unites, little by little, all that might resist it. It is in this way that we become, by the force of things, a moral French entity.”19 Yet France had a fatal flaw that explained much of its tragic history. He deplored “the multiplicity of viewpoints which is peculiar to our people by reason of our individualism . . . [and] our diversity,” which tend to “reduce the State to being no more than a stage for the confrontation of amorphous ideologies, sectional rivalries, semblances of domestic and external action without continuity or consequence.”20 The French people can only overcome this flaw by adhering to a solemn duty: “It is they who are responsible for it from generation to generation. France, it is more than the French of the moment . . . France embraces all French generations, and, first of all . . . the living generations.”21 One characteristic above all made France unique. He insisted that “France cannot be France without grandeur.” Grandeur united France: “France is not really herself unless she is in the first rank,” because “only grand enterprises are capable of counterbalancing the ferments of disintegration inherent in her people.”22

Two powerful philosophies tugged at different sides of de Gaulle—romanticism and classicism. By definition, people like de Gaulle who celebrate nationalism, mysticism, war, and heroes are romantics. Such nineteenth-century romantics as Francois Rene de Chateaubriand, Charles Peguy, and Henri Bergson deeply influenced his values, vision, and behavior. Two of his favorite writers were the contemporary romantics Antoine de Saint-Exupéry and Andre Malraux. De Gaulle named Malraux his minister for culture and undoubtedly would have found a similarly appropriate post for Saint-Exupéry had he survived the war. Of de Gaulle’s relationships, his with Malraux was perhaps the closest to a genuine friendship rooted in mutual respect, affection, and openness.23

Romanticism tends to warp one’s understanding of history. De Gaulle was not so much a student of history as he was an ardent celebrant of an ideal version of French history. Whenever an ugly historic truth exposed a cherished rosy myth, he tended to cling to the myth. Yet to his credit, he recognized this weakness and wielded classicism to temper his romanticism. If Napoleon was the ultimate romantic statesman of brilliant improvisation and opportunism, then Louis XIV personified the classical leader whose political system and policies ideally were shaped by balance, restraint, and order.24 Long after Louis XIV’s demise, Charles de Louis de Secondat de Montesquieu expounded these classical political ideals in his Spirit of the Laws. As a ruler, de Gaulle allied with Louis XIV and Montesquieu to counter the pull of Bonapartism. He most admired Napoleon for his power to personify France, and he viewed his extraordinary rise and fall as a cautionary tale.

Great men cannot rule alone. For this they need governments. De Gaulle explained, “Nothing is more important than the legitimacy, the institutions, the functioning of the State.”25 A state’s legitimacy essentially depends on its ability to get things done. Historically, many governments did not merely fail to overcome their nation’s challenges but were engulfed and destroyed by them. For de Gaulle, the best government at once gives the leader the proper powers to overcome all challenges while representing and expressing the people’s general will.

For both philosophical and practical reasons, de Gaulle was committed to establishing a republic, not a dictatorship. He explained, “To what upheavals would I condemn France by claiming to impose my absolute authority officially and for an unlimited period, once the danger which had put it into my hands had vanished? During the conflict, my declarations had deliberately left no doubt as to my resolution to restore its power to the French people once events would permit elections. If my power had been increasingly recognized, it was to a large degree because of this commitment.”26

He unveiled a blueprint for government in a speech at Bayeux on June 16, 1945. He chose the site for his delivery as carefully as his words—Bayeux was the first town liberated by the Allies and the first town to openly support him. During his speech, he laid out both the philosophical justification and blueprint for a strong government: “All the principles and all experience show that legislative, executive, and judicial power should be sharply divided and soundly balanced, and that above political contingencies there should be a national arbiter to give continuity to the different combinations.” The choice was crystal clear: “Our whole history is the alternation of the immense sorrows of a divided people, and the fruitful grandeur of a free nation grouped under the aegis of a strong state.”27

For de Gaulle, the modern nation-state was the best means of representing, nurturing, and inspiring a people. Anything less or more was inherently flawed. He scorned political parties for dividing and diluting national identity. For him, “the primary characteristic of the Fifth Republic’s spirit . . . is to eliminate . . . parties at all levels of public affairs.”28 Likewise he was skeptical and often dismissive of international organizations like the European Economic Community (EEC) and the United Nations (UN): “To imagine that something can be built, efficient in action, and approved by peoples above and beyond States is a delusion.”29

De Gaulle conceived and acted on a highly sophisticated notion of national power. For him, power was relative for individuals, groups, and nations alike. In this eternal struggle, one gained power at someone else’s expense and lost power at someone else’s gain. He understood the dynamic between hard and soft power and did whatever he could to promote it. He explained this relationship in a televised speech to the nation on Christmas Day 1962: “Our prosperity has reached hitherto unknown levels and our social progress has never been so great. And as the dual achievements of expansion and reason give us more, so France recovers its status, its reputation, and its assets.”30

He understood that wealth was power’s most vital foundation, and thus the creation and distribution of wealth was a state’s most critical duty: “The ambition and efficacy of a nation’s policies are bound up with the strengths and expectations of its economy.” During his presidency, “I was to keep economic and social problems continually in the forefront of my actions and my thoughts.”31 He explained the dynamic links within a virtuous cycle of power:

Politics and economics are as closely linked as action and life . . . What a nation earns from its resources and its labor; what it sets aside from this total income by means of its budgets in order to finance the running of the State which guides and administers it, disperses justice, provides for its education and defense, or to maintain and develop through investment the instruments of its livelihood, or to assist its members in the hardships which progress brings in its wake; in short, what a nation is worth in the physical sense of the term and, consequently, the weight it carries in relation to others—t...

Table of contents

• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Contents
• Acknowledgments
• Introduction
• 1. De Gaulle and Gaullism
• 2. President de Gaulle
• 3. President Pompidou
• 4. President Giscard d’Estaing
• 5. President Mitterrand
• 6. President Chirac
• 7. President Sarkozy
• 8. President Hollande
• 9. The Legacy
• List of Acronyms
• Notes
• Bibliography