As the French presidential election goes through its expected denouement of a run-off, Europe is confronting a larger crisis set off by acute economic problems, which have translated into a psychological crisis not seen in a generation. As post-World War II Europe settled down to peace and set about reconstructing shattered countries and finding new formulae for burying war among themselves, their peoples found a new level of prosperity and standards of living unparalleled on the old continent.
The European Economic Community, which morphed into the European Union, became a standard bearer of the new continent. True, the Balkan wars were part of the unfinished business, but the bulk of the continent lived in peace and prosperity. Indeed, Europe became the standard bearer of the modern welfare state far superior to the wild capitalism practised in the United States. And the euro zone with a single currency emerged as the beacon of the shape of things to come.
It was, however, the political, rather than the economic, impulse that carried European countries in its sweep. But the economic base was vital because, though the different countries’ fiscal policies were different, they agreed on vital parameters. And even as some economies such as that of Greece spent and borrowed money with abandon, the recession when it came caught them badly.
Austerity became the watchword, and painful cuts in the welfare state were the new rule. It is always easier to embrace new prosperity than to give up what one has come to acquire and got accustomed to.
The fact that Germany, as the richest country in Europe, has invested so much political and economic capital in buttressing and rescuing the new Europe is proof of European leaders’ commitment to the ideal of a united continent. Greeks and Italians and perhaps Spaniards might cavil at hard taskmaster Germany, but they cannot escape the consequences of their profligacy and must tighten their belts.
There is, however, a snag. As the campaign for the French presidency has shown, politicians in democracies must go back to their peoples to seek their approval and the proverbial common man is angry. France is both a unique and typical example of the European dilemma. The two main protagonists are President Nicolas Sarkozy and his Socialist rival, Francois Hollande. But the two extreme right and left parties, the National Front and the extreme left of Jean-Luc Melenchon, attracted rare support impelled by the general mood of plague on both your houses.
The first round election for the French presidency is never a true indicator of the second round and ultimate result. The French famously indulge their fancies in the first round to return to a more considered opinion in the second. Famously, the Socialist candidate Lionel Jospin against Jacques Chirac was famously knocked out by the National Front candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen in the first round in 2002 until the electorate rallied round Mr Chirac in the second round to give him a famous victory. But the second round this time will be different.
To many French, Mr Sarkozy, despite his activism, has diminished the status of presidency by his consorting with rich friends and what has come to be known as his “bling” and his open wooing of his present wife. Since the days of Charles de Gaulle and his institution of the strong executive presidency, the French have invested much in the political and ceremonial appeal of the presidency. And the hyper-activism and physical stature of Mr Sarkozy do not sit well with the grand design.
It is, of course, well known that Mr Sarkozy is something of an outsider in the French establishment, being the son of a Hungarian immigrant prince and not having been to the right schools and institutions, the traditional breeding ground of the French ruling class. Yet during the recent Euro zone financial crisis Mr Sarkozy teamed up with German Chancellor Angela Merkel to tackle the crisis and won her moral support for his second term.
It is well recognised that the touchstone of French voters as those across Europe will be the economy. Inevitably, the mood is morose and though theoretically Mr Hollande stands a better chance — he did go to the right schools and is placid by temperament (perhaps too placid) — the mood of the people is angry and voters can still deliver a surprise in the second round.
Greece is also going to face an election and the measure of belt-tightening forced upon it if it wishes to remain in the euro zone has already exploded in angry and often violent demonstrations.
It is enough to become two or three-car families but when the times get tough and many lose their jobs and have their pensions cut, the reverse journey becomes fraught and traumatic.
The choices in Greece, as in France, Italy and Spain, are limited. France has the advantage of having a two-round presidential election which permits people to blow off steam and return to a more sober choice later. But in every country the degree of disillusionment with prevailing conditions and political leadership is acute.
Logically, the mood should favour Mr Hollande in France; the Socialist Party has not held power since the presidency of Francois Mitterrand and if the French people want a change, they would vote to bring the Socialists in. The caveat is that in a volatile mood, anything is possible. Yet behind the crises Europe is facing, it would be fair to acknowledge the immense efforts the Germans and French leaders and other Europeans have put in to steady the ship.
In this instance, Mr Sarkozy’s hyperactivity has paid off, however much he might have veered away from the ideal of the French presidency.
There is no gainsaying the fact that turbulent times lie ahead for Europe until the continent finds a new equilibrium in a somewhat less prosperous and less extravagant welfare state. It is not beyond the ingenuity of Europeans to chart a new and still comfortable course.

The writer can be contacted at snihalsingh@gmail.com