I never liked the authoritarian decisions

Less than seven months of the presidential election, you deliver, in the third volume of "Power and the life" your testimony on the exercise of the Presidential Office. At the time where your book begins, you face the second oil shock. What can be a President of the Republic to such external shaking

The second oil shock was particularly difficult to manage because the French opinion had not seen him come while he was stronger than the first. It was not triggered by a known political event, and its impact on the price of oil are spread throughout the year. My responsibility was to quickly identify the phenomenon, to obtain the best information to study the range of possible actions, make long term decisions, and urge them all in the knowledge that they are not necessarily understood and supported because opinion live always in the short term.

"I resent not be in phase with the view", you write.

It must not seek to govern a people against him. In any case, this is no longer in our political system. It is important, when you are in the Elysee Palace, to know what people are in a State to accept and support. Without the obsession of General de Gaulle, who wanted to any time that the French recognize its legitimacy, should be the concern of this popular support. But there is a margin, because this is not to do only what the opinion request. There is a very French culture of respect for the fait accompli. Once the thing is, if the French think that it was well made, they did more return to there! Voluntary termination of pregnancy was never given in question, the removal of the price nor control...

With the development of democracy of opinion, is it not more difficult to find the right balance between long-term and submission to the opinion

It is probably more difficult media agitation, which is both instant and very brief. The system amplifies the impulses. The multiplication of the talk shows creates uninterrupted conversations. However, if they are genuine, they are not necessarily representative. Today, it does not seek to know what is the overall opinion of the group. It relies too much on individual statements, impulses.

Is discovered, through your book, the limits of the power of the President. Ministers keep the information for them, you ask a member of the Government denying you the lifting of the secret defence... What are the real powers of a President of the Republic in France

The French have difficulty to locate the places for the exercise of power. They think that a President is a kind of peak of the Pico della Mirandola be everything, could do everything, decides everything. But especially should not be that a President can do everything! For my part, I accepted quite easily to recognize the limits of power. This is me forced not much. I am of parliamentary culture, my historical models Tocqueville, Montesquieu are democratic models. I never liked the authoritarian decisions. Moreover, in any decision, there is a phase of doubt, and I find that resistance to illuminate this passage. Contrary to General de Gaulle, the contradiction is me has never bothered.

But, deciding, the President is still very alone.

The decision is a process. With me, it was always preceded by a phase of consultations. Then, I tranchais and it me has never been painful. When I arrived at the Elysee Palace, I surrounded by a team that thought with me: Jean Lecanuet, Michel Poniatowski, Michel of stadium, Jean Sérisé. It was a pleasure to discuss with them, we research, never in the confrontation. Out of this circle, friends can also give you good ideas, but it then things returned the normal connection.

I do not take decisions only on the advice of friends. Must be understood that the presidential power is not a solitary power. However, it is a responsibility that leaves little room for happiness. To be happy, should be relaxed. A President is never relaxed. It is like a deer in a forest, always on the lookout. The event facing the 24 hours on 24.

What are the most important decisions that takes a President of the Republic

The most important is the choice of the Prime Minister. Difficult task because the ideal character may not exist: it must be to agree with him, verify that the majority accepts and to ensure that it has a great capacity for management. All conditions that may not meet at the same time. The periods that the French consider as successful in their political life are those where the President and the Prime Minister have been good fit: for me, this was the case with Raymond Barre.

The second area where the presidential decision is important is military. Personally, I have been, I think, fairly well equipped for this: rapid assessment of the data, taste of decisions. But in a country like the France, there is today little of military decisions.

Do you have why, after the seven-year term, both campaigned for the quinquennium

Because around the time accelerates. This is the result both of the media and the development of transport and communications

: the Concorde and the TGV! Indeed, after my seven-year term, a kind of spontaneous quinquennium began in place: François Mitterrand ruled from 1981 to 1986, before a cohabitation. The same pattern is reproduced in his second term.

Has the five-year period not changed the profile of the service 2007 Candidates give the impression to compete for Matignon.

Any campaign sticks to the expectations of the time. Today, the international little interest, the domestic scene which concerned the French. They have experienced long years of unemployment and economic difficulties. They want to know specifically what it is preparing them. But this does not mean that one (or one) who will be elected will remain exclusively in this field. There will inevitably be a sharing of roles with the Prime Minister. Because, what some think, it will take still a Prime Minister. A President cannot discuss every week with the Parliament. Only the Prime Minister can do.

With the five-year period, many fear a monarchical drift...

It is true that there is, in France, the survival of a monarchical tradition. But this is not the function to be change, it is its exercise. The texts are accurate, but that you are passive or active, that you see or that you do not see, you change the exercise of the power. The personal factor is very important. Take for example the so-called reserved area, there is no law.

Parliament may well have its say on foreign policy and defence. When I was in the Elysee Palace, I tried to do that Jefferson was very successful in the United States: balancing the simplicity and the Republican dignity, but this was not always well perceived. Need to further simplify, lighten the Protocol. But this is not just abandon. In recent years, it has never received at Versailles. It is the most beautiful Palace in the world, should from time to time receive important characters.

In 1974, you have won the presidential election with a slogan: "change in the continuity...

I felt that it could renew the system while remaining in the continuity. This is what the French were waiting. This theme has disrupted the campaign of François Mitterrand, who was persuaded to prevail.

When you hear some talk of a break today, what is your reaction

I don't want to give advice. But I note that there is a strong stand in the French. On the one hand, they have the taste of the novelty. This is the reason why the France is the country of the mode. But at the same time, it is a rural, so stable. There is a year or two, I would have said that the desire to change no doubt prevail. Improving slow but observable in the economic situation, it can be that this factor is today less decisive.

During your seven-year term, you have advocated for mollified democracy. Twenty-five years later, the objective seems to move away. There are large fractures in French society...

We've now on a real problem, the immigration non-assimilated, which created zones of fragility. I had seen come the phenomenon. I am not at all xenophobic, but I knew that there was tolerance thresholds. I stacked them in the area of 10-15: from there, the groups will close on them. I put in place a system of visa which did not exist, negotiated an agreement to repatriate 35,000 Algerians without work, with their families each year with the Algeria. The elected majority in 1981 has terminated this agreement.

The problem of integration is more serious than that of unemployment

It is probably more difficult to resolve. Active Government can tackle unemployment and find the order of 3 annual growth rates. This implies that it kind of systematic assistance and to be creative. I do not think that the Thatcherite model can apply in France, but what did Aznar in Spain mandate is an interesting example. Generally, after a period of wasteful management and massive increase in debt, there is a space of possible initiatives. Therefore, the next President will have a space of initiatives. The problem of immigration is more difficult to treat because it is not for us.

You are very attentive to the "fragility of French identity." The "no" to the referendum he testified of this fragility

The referendum was managed in a disastrous manner. Ask the people who do not have the practice of the referendum, at a time when the power is unpopular and on a subject that presented incomprehensibly, this was surely lose. I was allowed me to alert the President of the Republic on this point.

As t-rest - it your seven-year term today

First modernization of French society, which has advanced faster than at any other time: the recognition of women's rights, voting 18 years, the condition of the elderly. Then Europe. We went to organized Europe. It was new, there would be twelve. It was still manageable.

Do you have regrets

Step so, except to have enough time to better address two essential subjects: the territorial organisation, which remains much too complicated, and education.

If you had only a single board to give to that or those which will come in May next in the Elysee Palace

I would say it: especially don't lose time, act quickly!