DEBATE: Did Jacques Chirac leave France in a better state than he found it when he became President?

Did Jacques Chirac leave France in a better state than he found it when he became President?

Alastair Benn, news editor of Reaction, says YES.

Jacques Chirac’s legacy is hard to define – he was certainly not a great President, and the old fox, as he was often known, never really shook off a (justified) reputation for sharp practice – his opponent in the 1995 presidential campaign, Edouard Balladur, said of him: “Jacques is like le beaujolais, they send us a new one every year”.

However, on the defining issues of his time, Chirac governed in a way that was consistent with an authentically Gaullist vision of “la France”.

He rightly refused to take part in the Iraq War in 2003; he offered an official apology for the role played by the Vichy regime in collaborating with the Nazi occupation and its active persecution of France’s Jewish population; and he saw off the Front National’s Jean-Marie Le Pen in emphatic style in 2002.

France is not an easy country to govern, and the fact that Chirac achieved a second term (something which has escaped his successors so far) shows that he ruled in a manner in line with its history as one of the great nations of Europe.

Nicholas Mazzei, a former MEP candidate and commentator, says NO.

Jacques Chirac’s legacy can be summarised by the famous 2002 election slogan when he ran against Jean-Marie Le Pen: “Vote for the crook, not the fascist”.

He did little to address societal issues in France on national identity and racism, personally admitting that he was partially responsible for failing to prevent Le Pen reaching the final round of the election. These issues continue to haunt French society to this day.

Chirac also damaged the reputation of the political class in France by hiding behind political immunity from prosecution for corruption dating back to his time as mayor of Paris. It wouldn’t be until 2011 that he was found guilty of corruption charges – too late to make up for the reputational damage he had done.

Finally, his decision to become personally close to Vladimir Putin in opposition to the invasion of Iraq enabled the despotic rule of Russia. His decision to stick it to the Anglo-Saxons resulted in damaging repercussions for the future of Europe.

Main image credit: Getty