Assassination of Jacques Chirac : A French Dallas

[LSCatilina]

Giving that we had a small trend of contemporary French politics AH, here's another.

What would happen in Maxime Brunerie did managed to murder Jacques Chirac on Bastille Day in 2002?
Regardless if he really wanted to kill him or, as he later claimed, that he wanted to be killed by police (let's just assume that, in this case, he's just very lucky); what would be the consequences?

Immediately, Christian Poncelet becomes the acting President of the French Republic and will prepare the incoming elections that have to take place between twenty and thirty-five days after the attack.

The incoming elections would be, IMO, quite chaotic :

- Lionel Jospin can't pull a credible candidacy after he just publically retired from politics, and as his candidacy in the previous elections was self-obvious nobody really appeared as a clear alternative. François Hollande could, as heir of jospinisme and leader of the PS, be the presidendial candidate ten years before IOTL. He would probably be weakened by his reputation (Flamby was already his nickname back then).

- The death of Jacques Chirac will be crippling the Chirac-tailored UMP. Even more than among socialists, it would degenerate in a civil war. Nicolas Sarkozy would have fair chances among the party, but less among the electorate as he wouldn't benefit from his ministries' success (alleged or true); Alain Juppé is, as Hollande to Jospin, the obvious dauphin of chiraquisme but would be crippled by his experience in 1995. Philippe Séguin could appear as a good compromise and a relatively good, but not charismatic, reputation among the electorate.
Christian Poncelet is unlikely to pull a Poher and to get candidate.

- Jean-Marie Le Pen would likely be extremely diminished in this new election, possibly claiming it's all a false-flag attack to discredite him. Icould see FN's results being the worst since years, maybe late 80's -scale. The Dallas comparison would be fitting there, as conspiracy theories goes.

- Olivier Besancenot (but other "new far-left" candidates as well, even if not nearly as much) will benefit from the wave of anti-fascism among youth electors, up to possibly gathering up to 8% to 10% of votes (possibly taken from Arlette Laguiller's as LO had an orthodox view on Chirac-Le Pen, saying they're all the same which undermined a bit their position). PCF might get a bit more than IOTL, not enough to make them relevant, tough.

- François Bayrou, as radical centrist; and Jean-Pierre Chevènement (sort of left-sovereignist) were predicted to be the possible "third men" of this election IOTL, before utterfly failing to do just this. Maybe ITTL, with an important decline of FN vote as protester vote they could get more : I doubt they would be present in second run except if UMP really butcher their chances (and there's a fair chance they will). (I suspect @Thande to secretly favour a Hollande-Bayrou second run ITTL)

Toughts? What would be the long-term consequences on French politics (I don't see France participating to the Third GUlf War either ITTL, altough the reasons and how it's done might vary*), not just evenemential but how institutional-cultural frames of French society and politics might change.

*And American french-bashing might get to brand new levels if it happens with a socialist president.

 

[LSCatilina]

Personally, my money would be on a socialist victory with François Hollande thanks to a much lesser abstention than IOTL, maybe 15% instead of almost 30%, accompanied by a socialist legislative victory on roughly the same lines than previously (except with an even less relevant PCF) and with a possible (but not widely plausible) trotskyist or neo-trotskyist presence in the Assembly.

Who would be second is anybody's guess, even if UMP does have a fair chances french right-wing is known to screw up their chances even when they're bound to win.

 

[Redolegna]

There was a big kerfluffle between Fabius, DSK and Hollande between Jospin's resignation and the législatives which probably did nothing to help the situation, and I don't think by July it had settled down. IOTL, Hollande could rely on simply holding the levers of power within the party, but as 2005 showed, his control was far from undisputed. Furthermore, at this point he's Jospin's choice for the party without having to win anything on his own and what has he got to show for it? Terrible result in the présidentielles, no unity going into the législatives and a bad loss (not as bad as 1993, but that's not much, certainly much worse than 1986). So I think Fabius and DSK would definitely challenge him to get to be the President. Both of them had high-level ministerial experience and could legitimately point to some accomplishments, even if there are drawbacks as well. Fabius has alienated a number of people within the PS over the eighties and nineties, and DSK has been under close justice examination, even if he had benefited from non-lieux up until then. At this point, though, the dodgy sexual behaviour has yet to be known among the general public and there's probably not enough time for it to get legs.

 

[LSCatilina]

@Redolegna
I agree, but remember that the presidential election would take place in approximately one month : it doesn't let much time for a congress or much agreement between PS' currents and leadership. So, willy-nilly, they would have to get a candidate in a matter of two weeks at best.
Laurent Fabius' importance within PS after 2002 comes in large part from an anti-liberal posture opposed to the governemental policy before 2002, and it did worked for a time but I think that in the immediate context of the defeat and the attack, it would be too soon to entierely work.

Arguably, we forgot about a possible candidacy that could be pulled ITTL : Martine Aubry's. She was reasonably plausible as a presidential candidate overall (even if her lack of governemental commitment might be a problem inside PS), and we could see a Hollande-Aubry tendem, one leading PS, the other being candidate.