Talk:Union for French Democracy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

  • I'm not sure how accurate it is to cite Christine Boutin when describing the party, since she was ultimately kicked out, and is UMP now. I think the fact that she was excluded from the party says more about it's attitude than the fact that she used to be a member of it. Not sure how to phrase that for the article though.
Actually, the mention of Christine Boutin is just meant as an illustration of how ideologically diverse UDF used to be prior to the departure of DL.
  • The split with Démocratie libérale specifically had to do with the party's refusal to work with FN candidates after the 1998 regional elections (with the consequence that the left won), was it not?
I suspect ideological tensions were running quite high. You just cannot put Alain Madelin and centrists in the same party without some difficulty for defining an economical line.
  • I was reading a French site the other day that I'm pretty sure said the party was founded in 1904. (But maybe that site was counting MPR or something in its outlook). I may expand the history section properly at some point but I can't say when I'll get around to it and others' contributions would be welcome. --Marlow4 14:40, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The party was definitely founded in the 1970s (1978?). IIRC, it was a combination of Giscard's Republican Party (now the DL), the Christian Democratic CDS, and the right wing of the Radical Party. It was definitely the creation of Giscard, to create a reliable parliamentary majority for him so he wouldn't have to depend on the Gaullists. The CDS is the only element remaining in the party, since the Radicals and the DL jumped ship in 98. I'm not sure about the specifics of the split - I would have thought that, more broadly, the DL's neoliberal economic views under Madelin would have been increasingly unattractive to the Christian Democratic elements of the party, but I'm not sure. john k 15:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

UDF: a Christian-democratic party?[edit]

I think it is very strange that a party basically founded on the christian-democratic wing (CDS/Democratic Force) is so increasingly social-liberal. Can somebody explain this to me? Indeed I think that, after the critics of MEP Bourlanges to Italian minister Buttiglione in 2004, it is very difficult to describe UDF as a christian-democratic party, don't you?

Maybe all the true christian-democratic elements switched to UMP in 2002... but what about Bayrou himself, wasn't he a strong Catholic? How can he be the leader of such a social-liberal party, expecially on ethical matters? --Checco 09:14, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Christian democracy necessarily be opposed to social-liberalism? The UDF has always been closer to the center than Chirac's RPR (which later formed the core of the UMP). Buttiglione probably isn't the best exemple (exemplary?) of Christian democracy... Tazmaniacs 22:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A Christian-Democrat usually defends Christian values: what Christian values are actually defended by UDF members like Mr. Bourlanges? This is something I don't understand. More, there are countries in which Christian Democracy leans more to the right than to the left (take a look at Germany, Austria, Netherlands and Eastern Europe). What is surprising for me is that, while in France or in the UK Mr. Buttiglione is considered a hard-conservative, in Italy he is pictured as quintessentialy centrist and moderate as his party is currently referred as "the Centrists" and the more left-leaning party of the Centre-Right. Maybe what is centrist in Italy is conservative in the rest of Europe, exactly as what is conservative in the US sounds pretty reactionary in Europe... Checco 17:09, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about what you're saying about Buttiglione being "quintessentialy centrist" or considered as such in Italy. If such is the case, rather than making an analogy with the States (which, because of their particular history, has always been particularly reluctant towards any kinds of socialism or even dirigisme and planned economy — at least in theory and speech, if not in reality), maybe the answer your looking for would reside in the popularity of Catholicism in Italy. Although France was traditionnally considered "the elder sister of the Church", tis is not the case any more, and bringing Catholic issues in politics is a sure sign of conservatism. Now, religion isn't more an important issue in France (although it sometimes rise to attention again), and there is little to distinguish the UDF with other right-wing movements. Another answer might reside in the fact that the RPR was originally gaullist, although it has little to do now with De Gaulle's policies. Bayrou likes taking stances against the conservative majority in power, although he more or less supports it. Just yesterday, he criticized the friendly links between Bouygues and TF1 and Nicolas Sarkozy, when interviewed on TF1 by Claire Chazal. This doesn't make him left-wing, as his party has little to do with the history of socialism in France. I don't know if I get you right, but the UDF is not left-wing, it is center-right, and comes from a Catholic history (see Georges Bidault's MRP for an older Christian democrat party). One distinction between the Christian Democrats (MRP and UDF) and the Gaullists (RPR) would be, for example, the European question (Christian-Democrats in France have always been in favor of Europe). Now if you ask me what Christian values are in Europe, I leave this question up to you. I don't know if that's helpful? Tazmaniacs 22:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your precious answer, but I have something more to ask you. I know that UDF was born in 1978 as an alliance between CDS, PR, Rad and other little parties on the centre-right. I know that it grew up with the goal of uniting all those parties on the right who were not Gaullist. I know that PR (named DL at that time) left UDF in 1997, so that this party was formed mainly by CDS/FD members (and Bayrou was one of them), but even that in 2002 many Christian Democrats as Douste-Blazy or Barrot swithched to the new UMP party.
My impression is that UDF reinvented itself more as a centrist and social-liberal party than a Christian-democratic one. Indeed I don't think that the only idea that makes different Christian Democrats from the other conservatives is the European question. So I ask you what are the typical political positions of a Christian Democrat (not what Christian values are), in particular on social issues.
I know that UDF is part of the centre-right and that it is a critical ally of UMP, so that his political position is more similar to that of Buttiglione's UDC, which is the most critical ally of Berlusconi's party, in Italy, than to that of Rutelli's DL (which in any case is full of social conservatives). I know that Catholicism has a different weight in countries as France and Italy, and that MRP had much less electoral strength than Christian Democracy had in Italy in the same period. Italian Christian Democrats were much more linked to the Catholic Church, even in the '70s (when they were basically the only party to oppose divorce and abortion, alongside with the Post-Fascists), while French ones decided to make a permanent alliance with the more secular PR of Giscard and the secularist Radicals.
So, as a recap, my questions for you are:
1) What is the position of an European Christian Democrat on important political issues and above all on social and moral issues? Does UDF fit all of these?
2) Was MRP a supporter of Catholic values as UDC is now in Italy?
3) What parties (and what politicians) in France support Catholic values as UDC does in Italy? Who are Catholic or non-Catholic social conservatives in France? [I can be sure only of Boutin and De Villiers]
Thank you very much, from now... Checco 08:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A precisation: althrough being a Catholic, I agree with you that supporting Catholic issues in politics is a typical sign of conservatism. This is the reason why I consider UDC much more to the right than Berlusconi's FI, full of secular Liberals and former Socialists! Checco 08:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are three reasons why the UDF is (partially) christian-democrat

  1. it is a successor of a christian democratic party (Democratic and Social Centre)
  2. it has a strong social conservative streak, that opposes gay marriage for instance
  3. it is a member of the EDP, an alliance of centrist christian democratic parties

all in all convincing reasons for such classification. C mon 22:42, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say that UDF "has a strong social conservative streak, that opposes gay marriage for instance". Sure of that? If what you say is true, why UDF MEP Bourlanges were so opposed to the nomination of Rocco Buttiglione, accused for his position over homosexuality, as European Commissioner in 2004? Checco 17:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You focus on only one of three arguments. I'll give you a fourth the french wikipedia also calls the party christian-democrat. On the homosexual marriage issue. The UDF is a broad party, which comprises liberals, who opposed Buttiglione and christian-democrats, consider this quote from the article: "Similarly, the social policies ranged from the conservatism of the likes of Christine Boutin, famously opposed to civil unions for homosexuals (...)." Although Boutin is longer a member of the party, the party still has a strong social conservative streak, according to this article!C mon 20:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The French Christian-democracy is more social than pro-freemarket in France, as opposed to other countries like Germany (the equivalent to CDU would definitely be UMP, not UDF). Today, UDF has two main components: Christian-Democrats and Radicals (heirs of the Parti Radical). Their main bones of contention are religion and moral issues (the radicals being very secular and even anti-religious); Bayrou tries to keep a balance between a balance between the two as some recents events showed it: -although he is deeply christian, he is also very much pro-laïcité. When the pope died, he condemned the measures taken by the government to mourn his death, considering that it was against laïcité. This stance raised an important controversy inside his own party. -although he is Christian and an important part of his electoral base is morally conservative, he took position FOR an official "civil union" between gays and gay adoption. JB 14 December 2006.

Thank you very much for your answer, now things seem to me to be clearer than before. --Checco 19:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse-me for my English. I'm French! The category "christian democrat" is problematic in the French political system. Indeed, contrary to Germany or Italy, no one party was officialy named "Christian Democratic". Probably, the secularism is more implanted in the French political culture. The "christian democratic" politicians have always prefered the word "centerist". Besides, exept in 1944-1947, no one "christian democratic" party was hegemonic over the right. It faced with the classical conservative right (CNIP, RI, PR...) and the gaullists. It has always been the moderate and minoritary component of the right. Furthemore, a part of the "christian democrats" joined the left ("the left-wing christians" who founded CFDT trade-union and joined the right-wing of the socialist party in the 70s). The CDS was the right-wing of the "Christain Democracy". When Bayrou took the lead of the CDS, he wanted secularize the party (30 years after the secularization of the "left-wing christians"). Indeed, the PSD (which merged with the CDS in FD) came from the anti-communist wing of the old socialist party SFIO, and this one was anti-clerical. But today, the secularity is not an conflictual issue in the French political debate. Bayrou is catholical, but he said the political and the religious issues must be separated. This opinion is largely shared in France. Hence the marginalization of a politician as Boutin who tries, in vain, to humanize her image. In 2002, the choice to remain UDF (Bayrou) or to join UMP (Douste-Blazy, Barrot) was not ideological but tactical.

Very interesting too. --Checco 16:14, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In order to answer more precisly to Checco's questions. In France, like in Italy, the Catholic electorate voted in majority for the Right. However, no one politician (except Boutin) and no one party presents like advocate of the "Catholic values". In the French culture, the secularism is very implanted, and if a majority of the French people (60% in the polls) declared to be catholic, a large majority considered religion and politic must be separated. After the 1905 law of separation Church/State, a long conflict opposed Catholics and non-Catholics about the schools. The last stage of this conflict was the 1984 demonstrations against the law of the socialist minister Savary who wanted cut the financing of private schools by local administrations. Since the 1980s, the question about secularism is focused on islam. Besides, the number of chuch-goer decreased. Contrary to Italy, the French clegy tries to not intervene in the political debate because these interventions will considered like not legitimate. The scarce churchmen who intervenes publicly in political issues are Mgr Gaillot, who advocated pro-immigration opinions, and Abbey Pierre, who struggle poverty. The opponents to homosexual mariage, for instance, said they defended "familly", "mariage institution", but they never said "we talk in the name of the Church".

Extracts from Démocratie libérale[edit]

I cut this from DL's article, since it's more appropriate here (DL history starts in 1998, not in 1966):

" The party that would eventually become Démocratie Libérale was created in 1966 by the Independent Republicans around finance minister Valéry Giscard d'Estaing as the National Federation of Republicans and Independents, a conservative, but independent, group which supported President Charles de Gaulle.

After Giscard became president in 1974, the party changed its name to the Republican Party (Parti Républicain), and in 1978 became one of the constituent parts of the Union for French Democracy (UDF), Giscard's new political coalition party.

In 1997, Alain Madelin took over leadership of the party, and led it in the direction of neoliberal economics. He changed the name of the party to Démocratie Libérale (Liberal Democracy), and in 1998 broke with the UDF, mostly because the leader of the UDF, François Bayrou, wanted to restructure the UDF from a federation into an unitary party, something which Madelin opposed but other groups within the UDF supported. "

Tazmaniacs 22:16, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Logoudf.JPG[edit]

Image:Logoudf.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 06:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

party still exists?[edit]

I'm not sure how it can exist along with MoDem and NC… —MC 18:29, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of today the party still exists and MoDem, which will be formally founded in October, is for now an electoral list/alliance/coalition composed of UDF (minus the splinters of PSLE-NC), CAP 21 and independents, such as Azouz Begag and some former Greens. --Checco 18:39, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As of November 30th, the Party has now officially ceased to exist, and has definitely made way for the MoDem. Wedineinheck 22:19, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure about that? I notice that for fr.Wiki UDF still exists... --Checco 00:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They're just late. :) http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-823448,36-984800,0.html While the name UDF still has some kind of legal existence (it will only cease to exist within three years), the party itself has effectively ceased to exist, as all its assets leardship and members have been transferred to the MoDem. Wedineinheck 07:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, fair enough. Thank you! --Checco 12:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:UDFlogo2.png[edit]

Image:UDFlogo2.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 21:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Union for French Democracy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Christian democracy[edit]

I would say liberalism is the more major ideology and should be listed first since christian democrats only came from CDS while liberal part includes liberal conservatives, classical liberals & radicals.

also all of their successors (MoDem (arguably the most christian democratic of these), ACDE, New Centre, Centrist Alliance, UDI & FED) we have liberalism either as main ideology or even as sole one

what would you say @Helper201, Autospark, and Lexoomfie: Braganza (talk) 17:45, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, liberalism or liberal conservatism is a much more apt descriptor than Christian democrat for the UDF. Alexouououou (talk) 16:44, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Union_for_French_Democracy&oldid=1208666029"