Co-authored by Carl Miller and first published in Le Monde diplomatique - English Edition

In French presidential elections, successful candidates seem always to be able to choose the emotional battlefield upon which they are later triumphant. In 1959, amidst the remains of the Fourth Republic, Charles de Gaulle offered voters a choice between his regime and chaos. Two decades later, Mitterrand hinged his campaign on the promise of social justice. Look forward another decade and you see Chirac putting employment at the centre of his promise to the French people. In each of these watershed elections, the successful candidate set out the coronating question upon which they would be judged.

These coronating questions are always emotional rather than intellectual. The right has been particularly adept at tapping the emotive currents that influence the behaviour of the electorate. In the 2007 presidential elections, for example, Nicolas Sarkozy was quick to capitalise on concerns relating to questions of immigration, identity and security, issues that were particularly topical in the wake of the 2005 riots in French banlieues. He gained popular support by portraying himself as a sort of super-politician, the man of action that France desperately needed in a time of crisis.

Looking back to 2007 may convince the left that they need a grand theme now. Back then, Ségolène Royal failed to inspire and was unable to present voters with the distinctive, vibrant and, most importantly, emotionally charged agenda that they needed. But the buck doesn’t stop with Royal: the torpor of her camp was representative of a more profound lethargy left of centre. Indeed, in 2008, the party in-fighting dragged the Socialists into the gutter at the very moment when Party oratory needed to take flight.

Of course, a lot has changed since 2007. The left have benefitted from President Sarkozy’s abysmal ratings – earlier this year his popularity dropped to around 30%. And, under the leadership of Martine Aubry, the Socialist Party has become infused with a renewed sense of optimism. But for all his sins, Sarkozy is a shrewd, experienced and ruthless campaigner and may snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. If the left is to win power, they cannot rely on Sarkozy handing it to them. They will need a presidential candidate who - with a grand theme of their own - sets their campaign alight.

With the Socialist hopefuls defending the same party programme, little distinguishes them so far. Economic reform, education, youth unemployment...the party’s political priorities are the usual suspects and neither Aubry, Hollande nor Royal have suggested anything to invigorate the debate. Add to this the lack of any outstanding personality – this is where DSK’s absence is most keenly felt - and the Socialist ticket makes for dull reading.

So, each candidate is keen to sculpt a distinctive public persona: one with a cutting edge (and an eco tinge of green). Perhaps they won’t have to look too far. One of the big fears du jour is rooted in the nuclear industry. Earlier this year, the threat of nuclear meltdown at the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan evoked the spectre of Chernobyl and provoked a wave of anti-nuclear policies across the globe. The Chinese, for example, immediately suspended any approvals of new power plants, while the British ordered a comprehensive safety review of their national nuclear infrastructure. Germany has gone even further, announcing a full withdrawal from nuclear by 2022.

Once an industry that soared above the political fracas, Fukushima has put nuclear energy onto the political map. A recent poll published in Libération found that 60% of respondents supported a progressive withdrawal from nuclear. This figure represents an increase of 9% on an Ifop survey conducted in March. Clearly then, the Japanese crisis has unnerved the French. And this public division is being played out in the Socialist Party. Martine Aubry has voiced her opposition to nuclear while fellow presidential hopeful François Hollande has claimed that a withdrawal from nuclear is neither economically nor socially viable.

The French have a long and prosperous relationship with the atom. In the civil sector, nuclear energy provides for almost 80% of France’s energy needs. Heavily dependent on imports in the 1970s, France is now the world’s largest net electricity exporter. Moreover, the nuclear industry has served as an international champion of French science and engineering. French-owned firms such as Areva and GDF Suez have become market leaders in the export of reactor (and related) technologies. In this industry, France is literally lighting up the globe.

And if global politics were an airline, French nuclear weapons are the country’s ticket to, if not First, then at least Business Class (where it can stretch its legs a little more than in Economy). De Gaulle’s idea of grandeur has woven nuclear into the fabric of French national identity.

Yes, the Socialists need an edge, but they also need credibility. A complete withdrawal from nuclear in France is almost inconceivable given how deeply reliant the country is on nuclear energy. The allure of a green, fashionable, and distinctive public persona is causing at least some Socialist hopefuls to lose sight of what France is – it is nuclear, more than any other country. France needs a debate on nuclear, and the issue could energise the Socialists’ campaign. But there is no point choosing a coronating question if you find that the throne is much diminished as a result.