L'état, c'est lui: Will Sarkozy be a Thatcher/Reagan or a Bush/Blair?

The election of Nicolas Sarkozy as the next president of France yesterday had us thinking about the nature of leadership in the globalization age. His arrival on the scene marks a major break from the past for France: the Hungarian immigrant's son is the first French president to be born after the World War II. In addition, Sarkozy has presented himself as a reformer, a tough guy who would not hesitate to make tough choices in pursuit of his strong-held beliefs.

The question is whether he will turn out to be a Thatcher/Reagan or a Blair/Bush. What do we mean by this distinction? Both pairs of British and American leaders presented themselves as people of conviction who governed by principle rather than by polls. They pushed ahead with their ideas regardless of the political setbacks and, at least in the case of Thatcher and Reagan, they were either admired or vilified for their commitment, grit and steely determination. Though his administration ended up creating a huge deficit due to the combination of high defense spending and tax cuts, Republican Ronald Reagan is now beloved - even by many Democrats - for his vision, his simple ways and his communication skills. Even Thatcher's critics would agree that her handbagging style and "the-lady-is-not-for-turning" rhetoric did force structural changes in Britain that were necessary and have turned out to be beneficial in the medium term.

As for Blair and Bush, both have turned out to be less-desirable "mini-me" versions of the two giants of the closing years of the Cold War. Blair came in on a wave of optimism, promising a "third way" - the free market outlook of Thatcher with the compassion and progressiveness of the Labour Party. Bush spoke in a pseudo-folksy manner and promised to rid Washington of the parsing of the Clinton years and instead govern along simple conservative principles. After 9-11, he took that a step further when he adopted a "with-us-or-against-us" stance in his "war on terror" - black and white, no gray.

Unfortunately, Blair and Bush went down the path to Iraq together, ensnaring themselves, their countries and the world in possibly the worst foreign-policy debacle in their respective histories. Their performance, however, has belied the rhetoric. Blair has been less than successful in improving education, healthcare and public services, while Bush has turned the Clinton surpluses into huge deficits. And of course there is Iraq - a devastating triumph of demagoguery and corruption over thoughtfulness and common sense that the world will pay for for many years to come.

So what then of Sarkozy? As former US treasury secretary Larry Summers said last year in Singapore, globalization means that the positives that result from it are magnified, as are the negatives. So when leaders do right, the full impact of benefits is greater than it might have been when the world was not as interconnected as it is today. In other words, good governance can really help. But the opposite is true: screw up and you can really make a mess. Iraq is just such a debacle.

If Sarkozy comes in with ideological blinkers on and pursues reform for reform's sake without the pragmatism and wisdom that comes with experience and perspective, then he could turn out to be a Bush/Blair. But if he takes a pragmatic approach even as he pursues his policies, he could be a great leader. France certainly needs to be shaken up. But you can shake a tree by the roots and kill it.