The debate was awaited. On the one hand the Minister of the Interior Gerald Darmanin. At less than 40 years of age, the former LR is one of Macronie’s heavyweights along with Emmanuel Macron.
On the other hand, Marine Le Pen, third-time presidential candidate, chairman for ten years of the national rally, ex-FN, a far-right party that, according to polls, will be present in the second round of the next presidential election.
Political engagement was important. For many, it was a kind of dress rehearsal before the 2022 campaign. The themes of the “Vous ont la parole” program on France 2 were devoted exclusively to the law strengthening the principles of the republic and which is currently being discussed at The national assembly.
Radical Islamism, terrorism, immigration, unaccompanied minors, asylum seekers wearing the veil: the sovereign subjects were always Marine Le Pen’s, and she was on familiar ground.
Explosive in theory
As explosive as it was in theory, with a few exceptions, the debate was rather polite and polite. The two protagonists took care to appear in their best light so as not to offend voters and not to damage their respective image.
Marine Le Pen and Gérald Darmanin had prepared the program, which was very civilized and driven by technical and quantified arguments. So it was a bit of a legal text: very interesting if you are into it, but necessarily a little boring if you are not familiar with the subjects raised.
Be careful and smile
Marine Le Pen’s goal was to win the presidential election. His goal was to get people to forget about his disastrous between-round debate in 2017 against Emmanuel Macron. It had an aggressive tone and an approximate representation of the files. She wanted to show a new face: that of a woman who could rule the country in a little less than eighteen months.
She was very careful and showed a smile and compliments: “Your book, I shouldn’t have signed it anymore”, “I’m glad to be able to discuss with you”.
Gérald Darmanin tried to be more concise by placing a couple of Repartees, obviously prepared:
“There is the Marine Le Pen of the trays and the Marine Le Pen of the Parliaments”.
“You have to take vitamins; you are not tough enough”. “You are soft”.
We expected a match between Marine Le Pen and Gerald Darmanin, like a rehearsal of a debate in the middle of the presidential campaign.
Finally, there was a very quantified technical debate, particularly on immigration, but no confrontation. Clearly, the two debaters had more to lose than to gain.
The result is that it was difficult to see major differences between the two without getting to the bottom of the debate. The left, which is not present in this debate, will no doubt now have arguments to oppose both. She could ultimately be the winner of this debate.