Oddly enough for a man whose election immediately resulted in a riot, Sarko is what stands between France and real, serious social upheaval and violence. For if nothing changes, the situation will degrade further, until a much greater explosion becomes inevitable; and if Sarko cannot make the necessary changes, no one can.

The gravest social problem confronting France is that of young Muslim men of North African descent in the banlieues, the urban wastelands that surround many French towns and cities, particularly, of course, Paris. The nearest analogy that I can draw is to the townships of South Africa under apartheid, though the level of hatred is probably greater in France than it was in South Africa. Of course, the level of hatred is not necessarily proportionate to its justification, and clearly the French state is not remotely comparable with the South African; but many other factors lead to hatred, among them the absence of self-respect. When Sarkozy called the mob la racaille, they were angry because they knew he was right. No one likes to think he is totally expendable and likely to remain a parasite forever.

At the time of the 2005 riots, no one thought to ask the women of the banlieues what they thought: whether les jeunes were heroes or villains, oppressed or oppressors. The French state, in its response to the riots, made the elementary mistake of pressuring insurance companies to pay compensation (which they were not legally obliged to do) for the burned-out cars, thus missing an opportunity to create tension and opposition in the banlieues between the law-abiding and the law-breaking. If car owners are to be indemnified against arsonists, what reason have they for despising the arsonists?