Of return, left? Loans to assume alternation, the Socialists? Two years after the seism of April 21, 2002 and the ousting of Lionel Jospin to the first tower of presidential, the PS and its Verts allies, communist and various left obtained to the second turn the regional ones a little more than 50 % of the voices. In 1992, the left directed 2 areas. Friday, the PS invested 20 presidents of area in Metropolitan France. And it has directed for Thursday 49 general councils. After having confirmed Jean-Pierre Raffarin, then altered his government, Jacques Chirac Thursday evening the withdrawal of the reform of the specific Allowance of solidarity announced, the renouncement of the ordinances to reform the Social security, the resumption of the dialogue with the researchers... François Holland, the first secretary of the PS, reacts to these first decisions. Whereas meets this Saturday a national Council of the PS, it also reconsiders the reasons of the unexpected success of the Socialists and pre-empts the conditions of a victory in 2007. Maintenance.

After the intervention of Jacques Chirac, can one say that the left made fold the government?

Fortunately that the French chose the left Sunday massively. If not, the little which has just moved on the specific Allowance of solidarity, the "ordinances" or the resumption of the dialogue with the researchers and the intermittent ones would never have been authorized. The lesson must be retained: there is not better demonstration of the utility of the vote. Let us not be easily deceived, however. Jacques Chirac is not seized by a sudden access of clearness. He knows only the reports/ratios of force. He moves back, he does not yield anything. He repudiates Raffarin 2, but names Raffarin 3. He evokes social cohesion, but confirms the falls of taxes. He says to hear the dissatisfaction with the French, but guard imperturbably the course on the right. In short, it saves time to let pass the storm until European to hope calms it until the end of its mandate. Its only concern, it is itself. We are in an end of reign. Jacques Chirac was elected on a misunderstanding, it continued his action in the lie, it is today in the contempt. And initially that of the truth.

It altered its government all the same...

It is not the government of a camp, it is that of a clan. For my country, I cannot be delighted by such a situation. The Socialists could find there their account in the hope which the unpopularity of the government nourishes their prosperity. However, it is never good that the capacity deviates at this point from the aspirations from a majority from our fellow-citizens. By confirming Jean-Pierre Raffarin at his station, the head of the State took the serious responsability to be unaware of the message of the people. He also made a fault while wanting to prolong a policy which was rejected in a massive way. I have a fear: that this obstinacy, even disguised by the clothes of the trick, produces conflicts, frustrations, angers.

One week afterwards, how do you analyze the tidal wave in favour of the left?

To gain 20 areas out of 22 was not foreseeable. Nevertheless, it is not in my eyes a surprise. I felt the dispute to go up with regard to the policy of the government. The question was to know which form would take the civic reaction. It could have been done apart from the vote for all, by the abstention. Or via votes protesters. That the left collects this dissatisfaction was not written.

How do you explain that it did it at this point?

The strategy of the plain left was for much in the will of the voters to vote useful. We also carried a project, limited to the areas certainly, but which presented concrete projections. We finally knew to show of modesty and at the same time perseverance. We were not there to engage a restoration, but to show that there was a return of the left. There undoubtedly was also a share of remorse compared to April 21.

Doesn't the extent of the victory entrust a particular responsibility to you?

It obliges us to raise illusions and to trace prospects. The first of the illusions would be to let believe that our victory would allow us cogouverner the country. It is not true. The second would be to imagine that the capacity will fall soon like a fruit blet. Even if we are in an end of reign, the executive has the institutional means to last. This double illusion can create frustration: "A what to vote good if nothing does change?" A prospect thus should be offered. It is not simply that of a stronger left, to protect the French against the questioning from the social rights, but from a left in capacity to control durably.

Doesn't the success of the vote-sanction translate a request for a left on the left?

It is not because the line was rejected that the PS should itself change course. Its course, it is the movement towards the interdependent company. The true defense of the assets is not the immobilism, and even less the prohibition of the reform. Our result shows that we did not need a speech "on the left". It was enough for us initially to be to left. If the French had had the feeling which we were not in coherence with their aspirations, they would have voted for those which proposed to them to go even further... while remaining on the spot.

You do not fear any more the extreme left?

We finished some with the bad conscience. The extreme left appeared for what it is: an electoral self-centredness. "Vote for me, nothing will not change." But the French want that that changes.

You gained the regional ones, however you do not have a project for 2007...

I consider that our project cannot be limited to one five-year period. It must be of long range, to define the company which we want to build. Like the instruments to reach that point. I prefer to lay down the objective of long term to define, after, of the proposals, rather than to offer a minimal platform which limits the ambition without identifying the project politically. We do not leave nothing. It is initially necessary to affirm what for us is not acceptable: institutional inequalities, discriminations, blockings, human, financial, environmental wastes. We will have to define then as regards education, of ecology, economy, institutions, measurements which correspond to this ambition.

It is you who will define this project?

It is the PS as a whole, around its first secretary. There cannot be of another place. The method also should be changed. Our project must be socialist. What will not prevent from working with the whole of the left. Because we know that if we remain between us, we will do what we already know to do. It is necessary to support our proposals on a broad consultation of the sharp forces, trade unions, economic actors, cultural movements, associations, intellectuals. Is needed that these forces takes part, I do not say Co-work out, with the constitution of our project. Afterwards, we will take our responsabilities as a voter this text at the end of the year 2005. However, it will be necessary, in 2007, to come in front of the French with a program which will have already been the object of a broad consultation. That will make it possible to avoid misunderstandings and to save time.

The presidential one, you think of it?

I am a first secretary, I invested fully only in this task. One cannot preempt our victory for other objectives. Once that we will have adopted our project, it will be necessary to designate our candidate in 2006.

It is what the Holland leg?

It is always to gather. It is the key of all. It is also to make simpler. And not to think that the presidential one is a question of exclusive relationship between a person and the Nation. It is not true any more. Even less with the five-year period. The significant one, it is to be in capacity to mobilize all those which can build a project together.

Is the plural left ressuscitée?

I never proposed a single party of the left. What did not appear suitable to me the shortly after a defeat does not appear to me more not justified at the following day of a victory. On the other hand, I would not like that after such a success of the left gathered, we leave, as if nothing were not, not dispersed at the time of European without to have had a debate between us. And especially every man for himself in 2007. The electoral success of the left morally obliges it to work together. I thus propose a committee of connection to counteract the right-hand side. However, we have also to build a common platform for 2007. We can start as of now opening on the great subjects the discussion in depth.

Did the elections validate your "historical agreement" with the Greens?

"the historical agreement", it was to make prevail the principle of union to partners who were not convinced by it and which benefits large. We must convince our allies which the PS cannot and does not want to only gain. Themselves would make a serious fault by thinking that it is with a reduced PS that they could go towards the victory. We need from/to each other. We do not have only seats to distribute. The left is not there to find itself at the time to divide the skins after victories. Or remainders after a defeat. It is what made the failure of the plural left.

Did March 28, Jospin really take its retirement?

Not, it made this decision on April 21, 2002. But it could find in March 28 a form of pride. Its departure led many of those which had not been there, two years ago, to make this time the useful choice. That there was remorse on behalf of the voters, yes. A return of its share, not.