Journalist and historian, Eric Roussel is the author of a biography on the former president (“Valéry Giscard d'Estaing”, editions de l'Observatoire, 2018), who died at the age of 94, of which he remained close in recent years.
What results will remain of the presidency of Valéry Giscard d'Estaing?
ERIC ROUSSEL.
He will undoubtedly remain the president who has reformed society the most.
General de Gaulle had promoted extremely important reforms when he came to power in 1958. But these were essentially economic and of course constitutional reforms.
They were not about mores, about society.
Even if there had then been a lot of progress on the condition of women, with the right to contraception, the reform of marital authority ...
Eric Roussel devoted a biography to Valéry Giscard d'Estaing in 2018./LP/Olivier Lejeune
François Mitterrand was also a great reformer ...
It was above all the abolition of the death penalty that marked the Mitterrand presidency.
And who stayed.
How do you explain this reform fever?
Giscard was obsessed with May 68. For Georges Pompidou, who arrived at the Elysée one after, it was necessary, so that such events do not repeat themselves, "to tighten the bolts", to tighten the "Gordian knot", the title of one of his last books.
Giscard, too, was obsessed with the idea that this should not happen again.
But according to him, on the contrary, we had to make adaptations in our society.
However, it was not obvious from his DNA.
That is to say ?
Giscard came from the center right.
He was especially noted for his talents as Minister of Finance.
If his paternal family had been a follower of the French Action (Editor's note: far right movement), his maternal great-grandfather, Agénor Bardoux, was one of the founders of the Third Republic.
All her maternal family was made up of Orleanists, that is to say reformers.
Not out of ideology but to ensure that society does not derail.
The reform of abortion, for example, Giscard did not do it in the name of feminism - and that is perhaps why it is a little forgotten today - but for reasons of public health and of social justice.
To present it in this light was also a way of making it more acceptable to the right-wing majority, which was hostile to it.
Political Newsletter
Every day, political news seen by Le Parisien
I'm registering
Your email address is collected by Le Parisien to enable you to receive our news and commercial offers.
Learn more
So he took political risks by reforming?
Absolutely.
Above all, it is abortion that has stolen its own majority.
Including within his own "private" family.
Because it is a very Catholic family.
But he consulted his wife, Anne-Aymone who, although very Catholic too, had given him the green light.
The reform of the abortion, it is the left which made it pass, on the basis of a majority of ideas.
On the lowering of the age of majority to 18 and the laws in favor of the status of women, Giscard was also not fully in tune with his political family.
This was one of the reasons for the divorce from its Neo-Bullist majority, which was very right-wing.
Faced with such internal opposition, why is he continuing his reforms?
He took a risk, but he was not a suicidal politician.
This corresponded to a project which consisted in "refocusing" the political spectrum.
It was all the more complicated to carry out as it was antagonistic with the institutional system of the Fifth Republic which pushes towards bipolarization.
During his seven-year term, the institutions were also "democratized"?
Effectively.
The right of referral to the Constitutional Council has been extended to 60 deputies or 60 senators.
Giscard had noticed that, until then, the opposition could not seize the Council since only the President of the Republic and the presidents of the two parliamentary assemblies had the right.
However, at the time, the National Assembly and the Senate were held by the right-wing majority.
Strangely, the Socialists condemned this reform.
For them, it was window dressing.
Was the reform of the ORTF also an important reform?
Of course.
And that, too, was a risk-taking.
According to Pompidou's phrase, the ORTF was "the voice of France".
Giscard bursts the ORTF.
However, in reality, it was more of an intention than a reality.
Giscard had a model president?
He greatly admired de Gaulle, even though he felt that after 1965 he had made a lot of mistakes.
Kennedy marked him a lot, even if he only met him once.
But it's more a style, a mode of communication that Kennedy inspired him.
A more modern tone.
And was there a model country in his eyes?
He was very familiar with the United States, which he had visited during his studies.
It is a country that he liked very much and which marked him by its dynamism.
In recent years, he was less enthusiastic.
And there was never any question for him of "Americanizing" France.
VGE wanted to liberalize the company.
But was he also economically liberal?
His career, his personal history (Inspector of Finance, Minister of the Economy) did not prepare him for it.
Apart from the price that he "released", he had rather interventionist reflexes.
In addition, the context did not lend itself to liberalization of the economic system.
It was the end of the post-war boom, the second oil shock… He didn't have the entrepreneurial spirit, running a business would never have interested him.
Besides, unlike Pompidou, he had very bad relations with the employers who, for Giscard, always came to beg for money.
He said his "great regret" was allowing family reunification in immigration matters.
Why ?
It was Jacques Chirac, then at Matignon, who proposed it.
Giscard's explanation is that at the time, immigration rather concerned populations like the Portuguese and that there was no religious problem that could arise.
Moreover, it was Georges Pompidou and the companies that had opened the doors to foreign labor and it seemed difficult to prevent them from having a family life.
Giscard would be a liberal president today?
It depends.
After his departure from the Elysee Palace, he was in favor of stricter control of immigration and even mentioned the need for a blood right.
He believed that if Europe did not solve the immigration problems, it risked breaking up.
He was a man who had his contradictions.
He favored "marriage for all" even though, as a practicing Christian, his preference was for a "civil union contract".
But he never took the positions of the extreme right.
What about Europe?
It gave real impetus with the creation of the European Monetary Snake (EMS) and the single currency.
He was also at the origin of the European Council.
But it is an intergovernmental body.
He had, moreover, alienated the fierce Europeans who were in favor of a federalist Europe.
Giscard was very hostile to the Commission which, for him, was not intended to lead Europe.
He found himself in agreement on this subject with Mitterrand of whom he always spoke, moreover, with consideration… Unlike Jacques Chirac.
Why do we keep very little the memory of a “reformer” president?
It is true that on abortion, for example, we speak of the “Veil law”.
Giscard was a little sorry, all the more so since, once again, he had made a personal commitment by carrying out these reforms.
He had confided to me that he could be the author of the "Dictionary in love with ingratitude" ...