The Exclusion of Women from the World of Politics: The Representation of Female Politicians Running for the Highest Office in the Fifth French Republic Dr Robert John Armstrong Visiting Research Fellow University of Adelaide This is a translation of my PhD thesis which was originally published in French in October 2015 with the title “L’Exclusion des femmes de la vie politique : la représentation des femmes politiques en tant que candidates à la magistrature suprême dans la Cinquième République”. April 2018. i ABSTRACT The concept of Double Binds as applicable to women, particularly those in politics, was first raised in 1995 by Kathleen Hall Jamieson in Beyond the Double Bind. Work has continued in this area and, in 2010, Cracking the Highest Glass Ceiling, edited by Rainbow Murray, was published. This work expanded on the issues raised by Jamieson and focussed on a range of female leaders around the world, including Angela Merkel and Hillary Rodham Clinton. It nominated six double binds that were considered to impact on women who sought high political office. Due to restraints on the length of the thesis, only three of the double binds proposed have been examined. These have been selected by virtue of their perceived importance in relation to the female political figures examined. The double binds examined in the thesis are: Too Masculine or Too Feminine; Experienced or Symbol of Change; and Associated with a Prominent Male or Demonstration of Independence. The six females who are examined in this thesis are: Edith Cresson, Simone Veil, Michèle Alliot-Marie, Ségolène Royal, Martine Aubry and Marine Le Pen. Each of these women has featured prominently in the French political system, with Royal, Aubry and Le Pen all having sought to contest the 2012 French Presidential election. The approach undertaken has been to examine a wide range of books, journal articles and newspaper articles to determine how each of the three double binds has impacted on the six females. While each female has been individually assessed, conclusions relating to the six women as a whole have also been made. ii The objective of this thesis has been to examine the private and political lives of the six women to determine if existing theory on double binds is applicable to each of them. Of particular interest is the role that a prominent male, be they husband, father or mentor, has in the advancement of their careers as this is an area where little research has been done to date. iii Contents Page Introduction 1 Parity 2 Theoretical Framework 7 Methodology 17 Structure of the Thesis 23 1.0 Chapter 1: Too Masculine or Too Feminine 1.1 Introduction 26 1.2 Édith Cresson 32 1.3 Simone Veil 47 1.4 Michèle Alliot-Marie 58 1.5 Ségolène Royal 75 1.6 Martine Aubry 91 1.7 Marine Le Pen 110 1.8 Conclusion 126 iv 2.0 Chapter 2: Experienced or Symbol of Change Page 2.1 Introduction 134 2.2 Édith Cresson 135 2.3 Simone Veil 141 2.4 Michèle Alliot-Marie 150 2.5 Ségolène Royal 159 2.6 Martine Aubry 170 2.7 Marine Le Pen 176 2.8 Conclusion 186 3.0 Chapter 3: Associated with a Prominent Male or Demonstration of Independence 3.1 Introduction 194 3.2 Édith Cresson 195 3.3 Simone Veil 204 3.4 Michèle Alliot-Marie 211 3.5 Ségolène Royal 221 3.6 Martine Aubry 239 3.7 Marine Le Pen 250 3.8 Conclusion 265 v Page 4.0 Conclusion 273 5.0 Bibliography Works 285 Peer Reviewed Articles 289 Media Articles 293 Speeches 309 Opinion Polls 310 6.0 Appendices Appendix 1 311 The Ipsos Barometer of Political Action for Le Point 6.1.1 Michèle Alliot-Marie 312 6.1.2 Ségolène Royal 313 6.1.3 Martine Aubry 314 6.1.4 Marine Le Pen 315 vi 6.0 Appendices Page Appendix 2 316 Popularity Rating TNS Sofres/Figaro Magazine 6.2.1 Simone Veil 317 6.2.2 Michèle Alliot-Marie 318 6.2.3 Martine Aubry 319 6.2.4 Nicolas Sarkozy 320 Appendix 3 321 Ifop Opinion Poll for Paris Match Marine Le Pen 6.3.1 December 2010/ January 2011 322 6.3.2 July/September 2011 323 6.3.3 March/April 2012 324 Appendix 4 325 Events following 30 June 2012, the termination date of this thesis, until its submission for examination in October 2015. vii Introduction In 2007 Ségolène Royal was the French Socialist Party candidate for the Presidential election. For a moment, one dared to think that a female was going to finally become President of the French Republic. Although Nicolas Sarkozy beat her in the second round, the arrival of Royal created much reaction in the media and among the general public. Suddenly, one started to believe that the glass ceiling which limited women was about to be broken. If we examine the history of the participation of women in political life we observe that, with respect to women of neighbouring countries, French women were well behind in the fight for the right to vote. Here are some examples of European countries who gave women the right to vote before France: Finland (1906), Norway (1913), Denmark (1915), Poland (1917), Germany (1918), Austria and Holland (1919), Sweden (1921) and Portugal and Spain (1931). It was only in 1944 that French women obtained the right to vote. In 1955 Maurice Duverger launched, with his book La Participation des femmes à la vie politique, the debate on the role of women in politics.1 This work examined the way in which women participated in political life in four European countries, including France, either in presenting for election or exercising the functions as a member of the government. Duverger confirmed that there was a large disparity 1 Maurice Duverger, La Participation des femmes à la vie politique, New York: UNESCO, 1955. 1 between their participation in elections and their presence in the executive of the government. According to Duverger, with respect to the government … political participation by women is very minimal and it reduces significantly as one gets closer to the inner circle2. Many years after the appearance of Duverger’s book, this situation of non- participation continues to persist for women politicians. Parity It was in October 1999 that the UMP government presented “The Proposition of Law seeking to install a true parity between men and women in political life” to the National Assembly. In her preliminary remarks Marie-Jo Zimmermann, UMP Member of Parliament, notes: “today our country suffers from a major delay in the area of female participation in political life”3. The Parity Law was promulgated in 2000. Henceforth, for municipal and regional elections, strict rules were in place to ensure that parity was enforced in the compilation of electoral lists. However, in the national elections, which involve single members rather than lists, this rule is not rigorously applied and the political parties can choose to pay a fine if they do not conform. Some writers, such as Sineau (2011 and 2006), Le Feuvre (2008), Achin et al. (2007), Bereni and Lépinard (2004), and Dulong and Lévêque (2002), have conducted 2 Maurice Duverger, La Participation des femmes à la vie politique, New York: UNESCO, 1955, p. 126. 3 Marie-Jo Zimmerman, Introductory speech for the Proposition of Law No 1850 in the National Assembly 13 October 1999. UMP: Union for a Popular Movement, party of the right. Translations from French to English in this thesis have been done by the author. 2 evaluations of progress in this domain since the promulgation of the law. Even if their results are mixed, they are in agreement that there is still work to be done before parity operates effectively. With regard to the positive side of the legislation, in 2006 Mariette Sineau, a researcher at Sciences Po and a prolific writer, notes in her article “Feminisation, Political Crisis and Change: The French Case” that in the municipal elections of 2001 and the regional elections of 2004 there was “a process of feminisation without precedent”4. In 2006 also, Katherine A. Opello publishes Gender Quotas, Parity Reform, and Political Parties in France. This book exposes the reasons as to why men and women voted for the parity legislation and examines the results of the elections of 2002 and 2004. Among her conclusions, Opello notes that women have benefited more from local elections than the national ones5. In 2010 Rainbow Murray observes that “at each election since the introduction of the law on parity, the proportion of elected women had increased”6. Indeed, for the national elections the proportion had risen from 23 percent of candidates in 1997 to 38.9 percent in 2002, and to 41.6 percent in 20077. 4 Mariette Sineau, “Féminisation, crise politique et changement: Le Cas français”, Observatoire des inégalités, 22 March 2006, p. 2. 5 Katherine A. Opello, Gender Quotas, Parity Reform, and Political Parties in France, Oxford: Lexington Books, 2006, pp. 144-5. 6 Rainbow Murray, “Women in French Politics: Still le Deuxième Sexe ?”, Modern & Contemporary France, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2010, p. 412. 7 Rainbow Murray, Parties, Gender Quotas and Candidate Selection in France, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010, p. 9 ; Mariette Sineau and Vincent Tiberj, “Candidats et députés français en 2002”, Revue française de science politique, Vol. 57, No. 2, 2007, p. 166. 3 By contrast, there are many research works which indicate that the problem of exclusion is still in existence. Mariette Sineau points out the persistent inequality of the system: far from reducing the inequality of women in respect of power … [the law] has only accentuated the phenomenon … The law has failed to provoke, by extension, a process of feminisation of National parliaments by reason of individual member elections8.